This one has been bugging me since long before the election, but I kept putting it on the back burner for when I had more time and I didn't want to come out as trying to sway votes. Today's headline about the US being the top oil producer in the world, in five years, reminded me to get back to it, though. I have read and heard, over and over, from news sources, blogs, and private individuals that Obama is doing everything from purposely blocking new oil well leases to waging total war on fossil fuels and trying to make the US a third world country. I usually pontificate on the sources of rumors, the need to justify the accusations with hard evidence, and give counter arguments but there is just too large of a body of falsehood to tackle in one sitting. So, I'm just going to work my way chronologically through the major myths I've heard over the years and let you do the majority of reading.
The US, because of or despite Obama - whichever lens you wish to view through - is projected to be the world's top oil producer. Regardless of your chosen lens, that fairly debunks the meat of almost all myths around Obama's supposed goals of eliminating drilling and attacking all fossil fuels. Now for a look back at all of the attacks.
1. The Republican backlash in the the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, actually baffles me. Usually I understand where they are coming from, and sometimes even agree, but the push for more drilling immediately after the spill, and basically ignoring any need for a moratorium, whatsoever, pretty well disgusted me.
"Because there was a suspension of belief on the part of the oil industry that an accident like this could ever happen, a suspension of drilling was necessary to bring those companies back to reality," -- House Environment and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass.
THE WORST ACCIDENTAL MARINE OIL SPILL IN HISTORY. Let that sink in for a second. How long is long enough, to try to get your hands wrapped around what happened and to hopefully safeguard against it happening again? Now read through this timeline and ask if any of those steps should have been hurried or ignored. Buried in there is also a nugget of information about early expansion plans the Obama Administration had, but shelved until a later date, due to the spill. The intent was there, but hey, they actually had to make a responsible decision to hold off in the wake of a disaster. It would be entirely conceivable that the aftermath of the spill would still be hitting the industry hard within 5 years, but just two years, TWO YEARS later, drilling is booming. Granted, there is a new regulatory entity and further regulations, but such is the price of sins.
2. The $2 billion to Brazil is actually chronologically out of order, but it only gained significant press after the DH spill, so I'm putting it here. Oh, the humanity...if it were true. There is virtually no truth to either the statement or the implication that Obama prefers to help other countries instead of the US. There are plenty of myth-busting sites for this one, but Politifact sums it up best:
"First, the number is wrong. Although there was an initial commitment for $2 billion, it ultimately became a $308 million loan guarantee. Second, Perry ignores that the Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency, and he is wrong to attribute its actions to Obama. The initial commitment came when it was controlled by Bush appointees. And although the Obama appointee voted for the $308 million loan guarantee, there is no evidence that it done at the behest of Obama."
3. The Keystone XL pipeline denial is probably the softest myth of the bunch. Here is a fairly concise description of the views from both sides. You're either for or against the reasons Obama gave for rejection of rapid approval, if you actually know what he said, but unfortunately, the rejection gets distorted into tree-hugging, liberal, anti-Big Oil, anti-jobs, etc., etc. and the majority on the Right don't realize or care that there were valid concerns over the time to vet the project. Also, Obama's action is characterized as "killing" the project, when it was never more than a delay. Word on the street is that approval is imminent.
4. From Romney's mouth:
"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land, [....] On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."
This one doesn't need a lot from me because here is a good breakdown of those statements. And This article sums up the first four years best:
"Obama has attempted to take a middle-of-the-road approach to energy development throughout his presidency.
He's resumed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP (BP) disaster, plans to allow drilling in the Arctic, and has done little to restrict hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- in domestic oil and gas fields despite fears that the process is contaminating ground water.
But the number of permits issued and acres available for drilling have generally been lower under Obama's administration than in George W. Bush's administration, which preceded it."
So there you have it, he has behaved like, wait for it, a moderate Democrat!
I LIKE it!
ReplyDelete