ShareThis Page
Obama’s energy hypocrisy |

Obama’s energy hypocrisy

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
| Sunday, April 3, 2011 12:00 a.m

Following President Barack Obama’s comments of late about oil and the nation’s need for it is a surefire way to get neck strain watching him pingpong back and forth on the issue.

One moment he’s assuring Brazil of U.S. support and patronage of its expanded offshore drilling. Next, he’s telling a university crowd that the U.S. must reduce foreign oil imports by one-third by 2025.

Attention, Gang Green: The line for more subsidies forms at the left.

Mr. Obama says the Interior Department is “working to expedite new drilling permits” when, in fact, these apply mostly to existing projects. One operation off the Louisiana coast — in the works before the BP oil spill — took 314 days to get “back online with this administration,” says Louisiana political analyst Scott McKay.

The only sense in what Obama’s saying is that the U.S. will contend with shifting oil prices “until we finally get serious about a long-term policy for a secure, affordable energy future.” And that future is in oil and natural gas.

Together they account for meeting 60 percent of all U.S. energy needs, “compared to just 8 percent for all renewables,” writes Lawrence J. McQuillan, director of business and economic studies at the Pacific Research Institute.

So, for a president who despises slogans about high gas prices, here’s one more: Drill, damn it, drill!

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.