Obama’s war on U.S. energy

By |2014-01-24T00:34:49+00:00January 21st, 2014|CFACT Insights|3 Comments

There is no reason for the U.S. to be in such a slow recovery from the financial crisis of 2008. If President Obama would get out of the way, our national debt could be dramatically reduced and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created in the nation’s energy sector, leading to the expansion of its manufacturing sector and still more jobs.

Obama Phone 4As Daniel Simmons, the Director of Regulatory and State Affairs for the Institute of Energy Research, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Healthcare and Entitlements in February 2013:

“The federal estate contains vast energy resources, but the federal government allows energy production on a very small percentage of taxpayer-owned federal lands. The Interior Department has leased just 2% of federal offshore areas and less than 6% of federal onshore lands for oil and gas development.”

“These technically recoverable resources total 1,194 billion barrels of oil and 2,150 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is owned by the federal taxpayer…the value of the estimated oil resources is $119.4 trillion and the value of the estimated natural gas resources is $8.6 trillion for a grand total of $128 trillion.”

As 2014 began, Mark D. Green, editor and lead contributor to “Energy Tomorrow,” a project of the American Petroleum Institute, noted that “Oil and natural gas are the energies of our lives. They heat and cool our homes and apartment dwellings. They fuel our vehicles and aircraft. They are components of products we use every day. Every day 143 U.S. refineries convert an average of 15 million barrels of crude oil for these uses and more.”

Green also noted the important role the energy industries play in our economy by providing “5.6% of total U.S. employment.“  With the right policies in place — pro-development policies that increase access to domestic reserves — the industry could add another 1.4 million jobs by 2030.”

Jobs for younger workers would increase because 50% of the oil and natural gas industry’s skilled workers could be retiring within a decade. Pro-development policies would fuel a renaissance in manufacturing as lower energy prices would reduce out-sourcing and attract manufacturers to build and expand facilities in the U.S.

One factor stands in the way of this brighter economic future and that is President Obama and those who direct the work of the Environmental Protection Agency—an enemy of the coal industry—and the Department of the Interior which has slowed the provision of leases to energy companies to expand the discovery and extraction of energy resources.

keystone2Instead, President Obama has delayed the construction of Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would generate jobs to build it and jobs resulting from it. Green says that, “As unimaginable as it might have been just 5 years ago, the right policy decisions could see the U.S. meet 100% of its liquid fuel needs domestically or from Canada by 2014.”

Energy industries already send $85 million a day to the U.S. Treasury in income taxes, royalty payments, and other fees. Obama, though, wants to raise the nation’s borrowing limits after having added $6 trillion in debt in his first term.

It was Obama who wasted a trillion dollars on a failed “stimulus,” discovering belatedly that there were few “shovel-ready” jobs while at the same time wasting billions in loans to wind and solar companies that went into bankruptcy shortly after receiving them.

As Simmons points out, “In 2011, wind power produced 1.2% of the energy used in the United States, solar power produce 0.1% and hydroelectric power contributed 3.3% of the total energy used. Solar and wind energy are unpredictable and require back-up from traditional electrical energy plants. “Today, there are 104 nuclear reactors in the United States; construction began for all of these reactors prior to 1974.”

Thanks to the EPA 153 coal-fired plants have been shut down!

What the public is not told is that the coal-fueled electric sector has invested $110 billion in a variety of clean coal technologies that reduced emissions by 90% and intends, over the next decade, to spend $100 billion more. Even so, the EPA continues to issue rules — New Source Performance Standards — that make operating coal-fired plants too costly to operate.

The Obama Administration’s justification for its policies is the bogus claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for “global warming” or “climate change” when it plays NO role whatever regarding the Earth’s climate.

The same lies the Obama and Democrats in Congress, as well as the Health and Human Services Department, told Americans about the Affordable Care Act are reflected in their lies about the nation’s energy sector.

Obama has been waging a war on America’s energy needs and the benefits that would result from its expansion.

Until Obama leaves office and voters remove the opponents of the nation’s energy sector, the enormous benefits to Americans in jobs and debt reduction will not occur.


  1. Frederick Colbourne January 22, 2014 at 8:56 AM

    The point that struck me was the one about the retirement of skilled workers. The passing on of skills is the way younger workers learn. For the USA to maintain its pool of skilled workers in the energy sector the various sub-sectors need to maintain sufficient levels of investment. Opening more public lands would ensure the continuation of America’s present energy boom.

    The “policy blight” that we are witnessing stems partly from ideology and partly from hubris, the one feeding the other. The gods will not inflicted the nemesis: US leaders will have done so by mad energy policies, without external assistance from the gods or Fate..

  2. Eckenhuijsen Smit January 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM

    Mr, Alan Caruba, Your article and remark: “The Obama Administration’s justification for its policies is the bogus claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for
    “global warming” or “climate change” when it plays NO role whatever regarding
    the Earth’s climate” are exactly what I am pronouncing for years on end as you can find in one of my recent CFACT comments: “EPA’s director and all other uninformed zealots who govern it ‒e.g. Barry Hussein Obama, the most stupid narcist in his
    undeserved position‒ still talking and mandating manmade CO2 to be stored
    underground ‒while nature and all life on earth would then die of CO2 starvation‒ should be kicked out of their devastating bureaucratic jobs!” But we still have a long way to go before the red/green culprits of the AGW idiocy will keep silent in shame. Read what such an individual Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a long-time contributing author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), still utters. She still doesn’t confess to the fact that the AGW alarmist brigade is
    a swindlers club. She still talks about “the 15+ year hiatus in global warming” turning around the hot spot that there IS NO 15+ year hiatus in the IPCC lies, because it is a permanent cooling for the coming decennia. She still talks about Climate Change, while there IS NO Climate Change, due to manmade CO2!

  3. jameshrust January 29, 2014 at 10:37 PM

    It is ironic President Obama in his SOTU address January 28 called for restricting fossil fuel use due to “carbon pollution” (code word for carbon dioxide) causing global warming. This is supposed to save the planet for our children. While delivering the address, Washington was at 18 degrees and the daily temperature was 22 degrees below average. The nation had snow in fifty states and 27 states were at below normal temperatures.
    This energy(climate) policy is consigning the U. S. to perpetual poverty. The Republicans should crush the Democrats on this energy policy; but it is not apparent they have enough sense to take advantage of this issue.
    The Republicans delivered a response to the SOTU address that ignored energy policy. Big opportunity lost.
    James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering

Comments are closed.