Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama calls for end of oil tax breaks (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thanks for the energy diary (17+ / 0-)

    This one I'm not sure about:

    Nor can it much affect the world price of oil since U.S. production is far too small at 2 percent of total world production.
    I think US crude production is now 5.7 million barrels/day, while world is about 74 million

    That would be more like 7-8 percent.

    Doesn't affect the conclusion I don't think, but the oil/energy deal is tricky and we need to make sure we are using the real numbers and not something from a soundbite somewhere.

    There are a lot of deceptive soundbites about oil out there right now ....

    The speech has some reality in it, which is better than some, but really we can't go great guns on fossil fuels, for the sake of the climate. A better policy would roll all that together.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:34:19 PM PST

    •  Actually, that's my mistake. It's reserves... (19+ / 0-)

      ...at 2% not production. And I am going to change that. Thanks.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:38:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is trying. (7+ / 0-)
      The speech has some reality in it, which is better than some, but  really we can't go great guns on fossil fuels, for the sake of the climate. A better policy would roll all that together.
      Obama keeps talking about "no silver bullet" for energy issues, and the need for "all of the above."   He says flat out (repeatedly) that we can't drill our way out of our problems.  He refers to wind and solar power repeatedly, biofuel and geothermal occasionally.  Interestingly, he isn't adding nuclear to the list these days, though he used to.  That may be just his campaign mode, not wanting to get into the more controversial discussion of the post-Fukushima status of nuclear power.  Or maybe he's changed his thinking on what's feasible in terms of getting nuclear development supported by COngress.  I don't know.

      But from the start he's been trying to wrap together fossil feul production, solar, wind (and to some extent other renewables) as what needs to be done for our energy future.  Essentially, addressing global warming through green energy and jobs..

      We need, of course, for global warming to be more directly addressed.  The biggest crisis of our era is not part of our national conversation -- it's insane.  We need to move faster on wind and solar, and to be funding new technology -- there's so much to be done.  Which can't be done if we don't make Congress both bluer and more progressive in this election.  

      Such an important election.  If we don't move Congress left, things get really scary. Because we don't have a lot of time.

    •  Thought the world was closer to 100m? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      No?

      This, too, shall pass. Just like the last global ecological cataclysm. C'est la vie, dude. Take a chill pill, recite the serenity prayer, go with the flow and the moderates into that "goodnight".

      by Words In Action on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:40:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site