Skip to main content

This story originally appeared at

How many times in recent weeks have you read a headline like this: "Oil Nears Florida as Effort to Contain Well Hits Snag"? 

Yet another "snag" in the Gulf of Mexico.  Remember that 100-ton, four-story "containment box" which developed a nasty case of hydrates, or that snaggable "riser insertion tube," which was supposed to siphon off so much of the escaping oil from the busted well, but didn’t?  No?  Little wonder, because we moved on so quickly to "top kill," "junk shot," and now "top hat" -- with both a snaggable diamond saw and shears that don't cut that cleanly.  Strangely, while all of this represents a repetitive tale of failure 5,000 feet down, the headline narrative remains oddly hopeful.  The next techno-fix, or the one after, will finally do the trick. (I suspect that oil industry insiders must be joking sardonically about rubes who will believe anything.)

The final hope lies, of course, in those "relief wells" now being drilled diagonally thousands of feet under the waters to intersect with the original well and cement it shut.  As White House energy adviser Carol Browner said last Sunday, "I think what the American people need to know [is] that it is possible we will have oil leaking from this well until August when the relief wells will be finished."  Mid-August may be a long time to wait, even if those wells are now declared "ahead of schedule," but at least -- we are regularly assured -- they will do the trick.  Think about it a moment, though: if a relief well is such a slam dunk, why is BP drilling two of them (one ordered by federal officials), and muttering about a third

Here, then, is a tip of the old top hat to grim reality.  On those relief wells, listen to David Rensink, president-elect of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and a veteran of oil industry offshore exploration: "If they get it on the first three or four shots, they'd be very lucky." That’s not exactly surprising given that the process has been "compared to hitting a target the size of a dinner plate with a drill more than two miles into the earth." Rensink also suggests that the odds of a first-time success are about the same as winning the lottery. What, then, can be learned from the historical record?  The last time such a well was drilled in the Timor Sea off Western Australia, it took five tries over 10 weeks to succeed (and in the process, the well’s rig went up in flames) -- and that was in only 250 feet of water

As with the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, Americans are already counting the days to "relief" in a drama implicitly titled, as then, "America held hostage."  "Disaster in the Gulf: Day XX," as NBC News’ logo typically has it.  Well, keep counting if you want, but don’t count on it.  (There are even reports that a relief well could make the spill worse.)  Whatever the solution, if any, to the gushing well, only one of 4,000 in the northern Gulf of Mexico, the problem is, of course, oil itself.  We humans, like BP, are increasingly out of our depth when it comes to fossil fuels.  AsTomDispatch regular Bill McKibben, author of the remarkable new book Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet (reviewed by Rebecca Solnit at this site) makes clear, this could be themoment to turn this country around on the subject of its energy future and begin real planning for life after both BP and deepwater drilling.  If only.  Tom

<span style="font-size: x-large;">If There Was Ever a Moment to Seize
</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Will Obama Stand Up to Big Energy in Deeds as Well as Words?</span>
<span style="font-size: medium;"> 
</span>By Bill McKibben

Here's the president on March 31st, announcing his plan to lift a longstanding moratorium on offshore drilling: "Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."

Here he is on May 26th, as political pressure starts to really build over the hole in the bottom of the sea that BP somehow seems unable to plug: "We're not going to be able to sustain this kind of fossil fuel use. The planet can't sustain it."  Still, he added quickly, there's no need for any dramatics: "We’re not going to transition out of oil next year or 10 years from now."

And here is the president last Wednesday, after yet another gimcrack solution at 5,000 feet under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico had gone awry, and real anger at the administration's lackluster performance crested: "[T]he time has come to aggressively accelerate [the transition from fossil fuels.] The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future."

The question is: which one is the real Obama? Has he really been transformed by the oil spill in the Gulf, or is he merely trying to ride out the public reaction with stronger words? I think the answer is as murky as the water off Mobile. We don't know because so far it's all words -- the closest he's come to specifics is that pledge that we won't be off oil in a decade.

Which, of course, is true.  Ten years from now, we’ll still be using oil -- many of the people who bought new Fords this year will still be driving them in 2020. Exxon will still be in business. But this realism didn’t necessarily preclude him from saying so much more than he did. Had he chosen to, he could have declared: "Ten years from now, America will be using half the oil we do today and producing ten times as much solar power." That would have been stirring.  That would have put something on the line.  

He could, in other words, have done what President John F. Kennedy did, when he found himself with a 10-year timetable. In a special address to Congress in May 1961, JFK urged that America commit itself to the goal, "before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."  He demanded of Congress "a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs."  

A year later, at roughly the same stage in his presidency as Obama is in his, Kennedy took to the stage at Rice University, having just toured nearby NASA labs. There, he gave a great speech. (If you think Obama has a masterful speechwriting team, compare his flabby remarks in California to Kennedy’s slightly shorter gem.) Its core went like this:

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone."

Now, let’s catalogue the differences: Kennedy had the Cold War to help him, along with an accelerating economy and a strong congressional majority. Obama presides over a fragile economy, a fractious Congress, and must deal with a lunatic right that, at the last Republican convention, came together around the slogan "Drill, Baby, Drill."

Not only that, but the challenge he faces is so much tougher.  The Apollo mission was technically complex, but in a sense the very opposite of our energy challenge: a moon shot meant focusing all our energy on three guys and a rocket, while an energy revolution would mean, in essence, landing all of us on a different planet, one where we no longer need the fossil fuels that are currently the engine for our economy. So, advantage Kennedy. In addition, no organized interest was fighting the space shot -- if anything, big corporations were lining up for a piece of the action.

Still, as Andy Revkin recently pointed out in the New York Times, there is "every reason to think a contemporary president could articulate how this remarkable juncture in human history, as infinite aspirations butt up against planetary limits, can be met with a grand, sustained effort."

Especially because Kennedy was taking a flier, there was no one demanding he go to the moon, and no real penalty for not even trying. (Lots of people thought we could have spent the money better close to home.) Obama, however, has no choice. The planet’s future (and his legacy) will, in the long run, be defined by his response to global warming, which is clearly the greatest problem humans have ever faced.

Forget the Cold War.  Last week, new satellite data showed that this summer’s melt of the Arctic is already ahead of 2007’s record pace. We’re in the middle of a Heat War, and we’re losing badly.  Globally, we’ve just come through the warmest winteron record, and it seems all but certain that 2010 will set a new record for the hottest calendar year. Every week we seem to see record deluges somewhere: May began with crazy flooding in Nashville and ended with inundation in Guatemala.  Last week saw the warmest temperatures ever recorded in Asia and Southeast Asia.

So far, Obama’s barely broken a sweat on climate change: a few paragraphs in a few speeches. Now, the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf offers him the best chance he’s ever going to get to go to work.  The president could stand on the Louisiana shore and say: "Bad as this is, it’s only a small and visible symbol of the greater damage we do each day simply by burning coal and gas and oil. If that black gunk now washing up here had ended up safely in the gas tanks of our cars, it would nonetheless have done great damage. It’s all dirty, every last drop and lump."

The president already has the podium he needs to start turning history, which means more than merely pushing for the climate and energy bill introduced last month by senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman -- a prime example of baby-step politics. As with his health care bill, on energy matters, too, the administration and its envoys sought out in advance the industries most likely to raise a fuss and cut the deals those cartels wanted.  Just as big pharma knew it wouldn’t face negotiated drug prices, so big oil and big electricity have been assured that there will be no serious opposition to their business model.

The bottom line: if you neglect all the offsets and loopholes, we’re aiming for a 4% reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. Make your blood stir?  Obama’s not proposing real solutions to real problems; he’s ticking off items on a list. He got a health care bill, and just maybe he’ll get an energy bill (though that’s an increasingly slim "maybe").  But we don’t need the bill, we need the thing.

I’m putting this all on Obama, even though it’s clear that he can’t do it by himself. He’d need a movement to make real progress. That’s the tragedy, though: he’s already got a movement. He was elected with millions of us sending him money, knocking on doors, standing in snow banks with signs. He commands a standing army (albeit one that’s growing rusty from disuse and a little demoralized).

And it’s not just here. Across the world, we at were able to organize giant demonstrations last year -- 5,200 of them in 181 countries, what Foreign Policy called "the largest ever coordinated global rally of any kind." We did it the way Kennedy did, by rallying people around a hard goal instead of an easy one: 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide which, according to NASA scientists, is the most we can safely have in the atmosphere. Since we’re already past that point -- at 390 ppm -- we need to work harder than we could ever have imagined. We really do need to get off oil in the coming decade. 

But to have a chance we need a leader. We need someone to stand up and tell it the way it is, and in language so compelling and dramatic it sets us on a new path. On this planet of nearly seven billion, at this moment in history, there’s exactly one person who could play that role. And so far he hasn't decided.

Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the founder of and the author most recently of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet.

Copyright 2010 Bill McKibben

Originally posted to TomDispatch on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 06:52 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  You have to remember -- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ActivistGuy, ohmyheck

      Obama's goal is a world in which "alternative energy," defined to include natural gas and nuclear power, is a mere supplement to the fossil-fuel energy which runs capitalist world society.  Obama on the climate bill:

      We also have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)

      Obama's vision is also that of more capitalism, which won't do us a lot of good:

      But the only way the transition to clean energy will ultimately succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future -- if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed.

      Never mind the contradiction between an expanding capitalist system and a finite planet Earth, then.  We're going into the abyss, unless we can wrap our heads around something better than this.

      "War's good business/ So give your son/ But I'd rather have my country die for me" -- Grace Slick

      by Cassiodorus on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 08:40:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He's Seizing It For Nukes, Gas and Coal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exlrrp, Cassiodorus, ohmyheck

    That's his alternative energy program.

    Obama's not a moment-seizer, but he will push a little harder and get a little more for our sensibly moderate alternative energy course.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

  •  If "we are the ones we've been waiting for," (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies, ohmyheck

    the leadership of President Obama is still very important, but from us the waiting should be over.

    As the polls show that more and more people understand the problems of off-shore drilling and are less willing to support it, each one of us can work to accelerate this trend by talking and writing about the dangers of relying more and more on untested and dangerous technologies to extract fossil fuels that are increasingly hard to get at.

    At the same time we can use proven technologies to increase efficiency in the use of energy and to switch to energy sources that emit very little carbon gases.

    If we make enough noise and take enough action, the President will first follow and then lead.  But in a way, I guess that's the point of the diary.

    "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

    by LookingUp on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 07:02:44 AM PDT

  •  Yes We Can (0+ / 0-)


    Much encouraged by John Kerry's appearance on This Week. The time is now.

    We are being left behind because of the flat earthers.

    GOP wants to do a piece meal strategy, just take out a few pieces and to hit singles.

    Kerry says no way. It needs to be comprehensive.

    Best analogy ever.

    Kerry says.

    Did Babe Ruth ever come up to the plate and say. "I want to hit a single."? No you want a home run. OUr energy strategy has to be a homerun.

    Yeah! Three cheers for Energy Reform. It not now when?

    Yes we can.

  •  Does not have anything to do with obama! and (0+ / 0-)

    As long as you have both the left and the right going on tv and bashing the adminstration, he will be minimized.  that is his power will be gradually declining, exactly what the right wants.  I tell you, the left knows how to screw things up!  They over sold to much government, and obama was in the middle on everything and got attacked.  And now everyone is heading for the hills!  

    •  Re-read the diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I understand your frustration with the left (myself included) bashing Obama.  He is in a real tough place.

      However, we really do have a planetary emergency.  The one thing that could really help is true leadership.  Leadership is not doing the political calculated move, triangulating as Obama and almost all politicians have been doing.  What we need is bold leadership.  This is what we all were hoping we would get.  While I applaud many of Obama's efforts, they have not been bold. Not only is this a big disappointment, it will not solve our planetary emergency.

      To be fair, others preceding Obama also should be faulted for their complete lack of bold leadership on our oil addiction and the problems that are resulting.  It is unfair to put it all on Obama.  But he is the one in office now and we need bold leadership. We must push him as hard as possible if we have any hope.

  •  what's one more opportunity missed? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's getting so ya needs a program to keep track!
    Nothing new here...
    move along, move along!

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 08:56:01 AM PDT

  •  ...and while we are waiting.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for this 'alternative' moment, let's try a little conservation; e.g. try driving at the posted speed limits for a start!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site