President Obama's address tonight addressed two different topics related to BP's oil spill. First, he focused on what the Federal government is doing to respond to the immediate crisis in the Gulf Coast and how it is preparing for the region's recovery. Second, he focused on the the implications of this spill for national energy policy.
If you've been following the crisis, you already know much of what he said in the first part of the speech. I thought it was important that he said 90% of the spill would soon be contained and also that he implicitly pushed back on Bobby Jindal's withering attacks on the Federal government, pointing out (but not by name) that Jindal has actually failed to use all of the resources made available to him.
My sense is that President Obama showed the most passion in the second part of the speech, in which he urged passage of legislation that would end our dependence on fossil fuels. He didn't go into detail on specific provisions, but he made the case for the urgency of acting now. Here's a couple of passages worth noting:
For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.
The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.
We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.
Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.
So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development – and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.
All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet.
It would have been very hard in this speech for President Obama to go into great detail on energy policy, and as a result, some will dismiss this as fluffy rhetoric. But I think he's serious, and is setting the stage for a major push on energy reform. What are your thoughts?
Update 1 -- I'd also add that addressing energy policy even as the crisis continues to unfold took some political courage. Obama started talking about the implications of the spill on energy policy two weeks ago at Carnegie Mellon, and while I personally would have liked to have seen him start even earlier, there's definitely some political risk to talking about broader policy issues while he is simultaneously battling the well (and BP). But it's a risk worth taking, not for political reasons, but because getting energy policy right is such an important thing to our future. Just focusing on the immediate aftermath of this spill would leave us vulnerable to a repeat disaster -- one that could quite easily be even worse. So as important as it is to effectively respond to the spill, it would be a dereliction of duty to not start a national conversation on energy reform. Of course, the real test will be whether he is able to get the Senate to take action. But no more than ever, action is vital.