More Obama “Surprise” Audio. This Time On Energy.
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Energy, VideoToday two pieces of audio (from the same interview) have popped up about Obama explaining how energy prices would go up under his cap and trade system.
First, Obama explains why energy prices would go up in the short term, but ultimately go down in the long term.
Let’s face it, there’s really nothing new here.
Yes, we’re gonna have some pain in the short term because turning around climate change and having cleaner, cheaper energy sources in the future will not be easy. But as we’ve seen with just our gas costs, we can all start to use less and drive prices down. In short, we all have control over this.
Also, this is obviously one of the reasons why Obama has a plan to provide a $1,000 windfall profits energy rebate.
Next, Obama talks about how new, dirty coal plants wouldn’t be economically viable.
Everybody knows that Obama backs clean coal, and that building dirty coal plants wouldn’t be economically viable under his cap and trade system because it would create so much pollution.
And, by the way, who exactly is for new dirty coal plants? Even the coal industry is beginning to abandon them. Why? Because they know the government is putting economic barriers in place to dissuade them from building any. And realistically, that’s the only way you can get businesses to start looking towards building alternative energy plants and becoming more climate conscious. Or maybe you believe they’ll do it out of the goodness of their hearts. If so, good luck with that.
Again, there’s nothing new here except intellectually dishonest economic fear mongering. Obviously the videos never mention that the revenue the government would collect from the cap and trade auctions (between $30 and $50 billion per year) would be used to help build new power plants and create new jobs. You know, jobs that won’t be obsolete, unlike coal jobs that will obviously become fewer and fewer as we start to ween ourselves from it as an energy source.
So then, you’ve heard some “scary” audio. Now see some video.
This is Obama on October 8th, 2007 talking about his energy policy and telling the American people what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear…
Yes folks, fixing the energy problem will not be easy. If Republicans want to pretend that it will be and there will be no pain for consumers, then that’s fine. But that’s not the message Obama has run on from the very beginning, and unearthing some audio at the last minute doesn’t change that fact.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 2nd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Energy, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I don’t know if this is just Drudge’s transparent attempt to get back in the good graces of the right wing or drum up hits from both sides. He’s been posting misleading, and sometimes blatantly inaccurate, headlines and articles, about Obama for the last few days, including the above, which is clearly taken out of context.
November 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
What the heck are you talking about? “Clean coal” means sulfur-less and nitrate-less coal. Obama wants to cap and trade CO2 emissions which is a byproduct of ALL coal-burning power plants (so does McCain, from what I understand). Do you honestly believe there is some magic form of coal that does not produce greenhouse emissions when you burn it? In fact, “clean coal” produces more CO2 than “dirty coal” because it is more efficient combustion.
Power plants sell their energy to produce revenue. Auctioning carbon credits doesnt generate any new wealth, it simply siphons off what has already been produced. It is meant to curb energy production. You cannot create wealth from thin air. The cap and trade simply acts as a tax on already created revenue. Therefore there is a net loss of wealth created overall, because you have capped production. How do you not understand this?
The only one who is being deceptive on this issue is you Justin, not Obama’s critics. What is most astonishing to me is how willfully you decieve yourself.
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Jimmy,
First off, let’s be clear…”clean coal” is a term that is used to describe a combination of factors, not just the coal itself. I thought this was known terminology.
So what Obama was talking about was what Bush was talking about in late 2007…
However, I disagree that carbon credits will curb energy production. This is the same argument people talk about when discussing higher income taxes and say, “What’s the incentive to earn more income?” The answer is…to earn more income. Yes, you pay more taxes on that income, but you’re still making more money and getting richer. The same is true with business.
And actually, cap and trade market allows the market to evolve and drive down the costs of those credit. In other words, as more of these plants pollute less, the credits will get cheaper. So it’s more desirable than a straight tax on emissions.
If you think I’m deceiving myself, then I don’t know what to tell you. I think Republicans are deceiving themselves if they don’t realize that it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Jimmy,
You can’t create wealth out of thin air, but you can create wealth by the more efficient use and allocation of resources. A nation wide cap-and-trade system was put in place for sulfur dioxide and almost every report on the subject has shown that the benefits outweighed the costs. While coal companies were forced to innovate, raising their costs, the flexibility of the cap-and-trade system allowed the industry to cut costs where it was cheapest and let older plants expire first. True, some plants closed that would not have and some workers lost their jobs who otherwise would have kept them. So where are the benefits? Mainly in reduced mortality rates from a reduction in PM2.5 (particulate matter under 2.5 microns) and a reduction in damage to natural resources (timber, fresh water streams and lakes).
The case here is less convincing, since CO2 doesn’t actually cause direct health problems. Perhaps you’ll argue that global warming isn’t an imperative problem and now is not the time to undertake this, but if, as many in and around Obama believe, global warming is a problem that we should address now, this could conceivably create benefits (indirectly from slowed global warming) that outweigh the costs of the system. While the benefits are not as clear as the costs, they do exist and as the sulfur dioxide case study shows, we can actually _create_ wealth, not out of thin air, but out of a more socially efficient allocation of resources.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
Because curbing sulfur dioxide was considered a benefit. If Obama says, “look how much CO2 has been reduced,” who are we to argue with him? Energy production still goes down. I doubt that Obama would seek a reduction in CO2 levels, just a smaller degree of increase (otherwise he certainly would bankrupt our nation). Therefore, energy production will not increase as much as it would have had the caps not been put in place. If you want to expand, you go “bankrupt”. Without these bankrupting restrictions, the industry naturally would have expanded as energy output increases, which affects almost every aspect of of our economy.
If Obama wants 150 billion in new research funds for alternative energy, he would get it quicker by allowing the energy industry to grow by taxing profits with lower rates. You get more money that way. But we all know that Barack Obama is not so interested in acquiring revenue for the government as much as he is interested in punishing the rich and reducing economic growth in the name of “fairness”.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
[...] are hammering Obama on his coal comments and falsely accusing the San Francisco Chronicle of burying the interview even though they’ve [...]
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Sorry Jimmy, any argument you had would have to have been that we should not tax carbon dioxide because we cannot weigh the benefits since its actual impact through global warming cannot adequately be measured.
See the case study of Denmark for a country that has reduced its CO2 emissions (yes reduced, by over 20 million metric tons since the early 90s) that is still a highly competitive economy. Why? Improvements in energy intensity, through improved technology, have reduced CO2 emissions while growing both energy consumption and the economy. The industry will still expand, just at a higher cost, with greater incentives for increasing efficiency over expansion (something I think we all benefit from).
Second, we do not tax carbon emissions now, so how could we get more money from keeping the status quo? Also, having no tax on carbon emissions sends no signals whatsoever that we want the industry to reduce carbon emissions, so I’d say your argument that low tax rates will speed up a switch to alternative energy makes no sense. Nice tagline, carbon dioxide taxes have nothing to do with taxing the rich, every single consumer pays those taxes.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Looks to me like Jimmi has kicked everyone else’s arse here. Nicely done Jimmi.