GW on Facebook  |   Home  |   Interchange Work to Start After Government Seizes Private Property

Obama Exploits Spill for Political Gain

Seriously?

Obama was serving up some partisan red meat but the audience of about 300 people at Carnegie Mellon University did not seem to have a taste for it. There were few applause breaks and the crowd was largely subdued.

Without naming BP or any particular company, Obama said that one element of the transition to a clean energy economy is to roll back the billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies in order to make investments in clean energy research and development a priority.

Obama said that while the votes in the Senate may not be there right now for an energy plan, he intends to find them in the coming months.

Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?  The question is, how will repealing tax breaks either plug the hole or clean the beaches?  It may or may not be good policy, but let’s not pretend it has anything to do with the BP spill.

Posted by Owen at 2050 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Technology

1. 

   Ugh.

   Posted by hsgbdmama on June 03, 2010 at 0627 hrs
   
   
   

2. You’re characterizing this as some kind of cynical ploy to use scenario A to advance totally unrelated policy initiative B.  On the contrary, i think it makes perfect sense and isn’t cynical at all.  Environmental damage—whether it’s spills or car exhaust—is one of the valid reasons why we might want to work on some other energy ideas.

   Of course it is probably the case that this recent catastrophe makes it more politically possible to advance those kind of policies.  But I hardly see connecting those dots as overly opportunistic.

   Posted by scott on June 03, 2010 at 1609 hrs
   
   
   

3. You’re characterizing this as some kind of cynical ploy to use scenario A to advance totally unrelated policy initiative B.

   Just wondering if post 9/11/2001 you were also saying the same thing about the Bush critics? 

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2010 at 1704 hrs
   
   
   

4. What do you mean?

   Posted by scott on June 03, 2010 at 1726 hrs
   
   
   

5. After 9/11 when Bush started his anti-terrah push, a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) complained that Bush was using this tragedy for political gain.  I’m wondering if you were the calming voice of reason then as well as now.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 0556 hrs
   
   
   

6. If Cap and Trade becomes law the answer is obvious. This administration has been about nothing “but” advancement of the socialist agenda, and the destruction of the free market.

   Get a clue.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1206 hrs
   
   
   

7. The issue here isn’t whether someone does or does not use an event for political gain.  THe question is whether they are doing so cynically, inappropriately or deceitfully.  In this case, the pollution associated with fossil fuels is a legitimate reason one might want to invest in alternative energy solutions.  The fact that a huge oil spill helps that argument doesn’t make it inappropriate to say so.

   If Cap and Trade becomes law the answer is obvious. This administration has been about nothing “but” advancement of the socialist agenda, and the destruction of the free market.

   Why don’t you tell us how you’d like to reduce greenhouse gasses without such measures?

   Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1214 hrs
   
   
   

8. Why don’t you tell us how you’d like to reduce greenhouse gasses without such measures?

   Let’s start by proving that the CO2 emitted actually causes a problem…

   (insert lefty study here)

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1356 hrs
   
   
   

9. To do that would require you to join me in a little place I like to call ‘reality’—so clearly that’s impossible.

   Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1358 hrs
   
   
   

10. So… per Scott ... proving CO2 emitted actually causes a problem is impossible…

    ...  now we are getting somewhere…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1359 hrs
    
    
    

11. It’s only possible to do with people who are rational.

    Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1403 hrs
    
    
    

12. oh the irony….

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1527 hrs
    
    
    

13. Smeety,

    EPA information on CO2 and climate change.

    Here’s a nice summary from a Texas A&M textbook.

    Here’s some stuff from NOAA.

    And so on.

    There’s a lot of healthy debate about specifics, but none about the overall science.

    You can show me scientific claims that global warming is all a fraud. And I can find scientific claims that dinosaurs roamed the earth 7,000 years ago.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1617 hrs
    
    
    

14. http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-popcorn.gif

    Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1634 hrs
    
    
    

15. Dang it, I need that popcorn smiley.

    Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1635 hrs
    
    
    

16. Alright, same tired debate, but aside from the one degree difference aside from the incredibly small sample size .. here’s the issue:

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must influence earth’s radiation balance.

    ... from the TAMU page.  Fuzzy comment.  Why must it influence the earth’s radiational balance?  Why can’t global warming be duplicated in an experiment?  I need more than it ‘must influence’....  and I need it from someone without financial gain from this issue. 

    But hey, that’s just me, and the other fifty per cent of Americans that aren’t rational about this issue…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1637 hrs
    
    
    

17. :zpopcorn:

    It’s there.  What, sre you on a Mac or something

    Posted by Owen on June 04, 2010 at 1701 hrs
    
    
    

18. [img]http://www.bootsandsabers.com/images/smileys/zpopcorn.gif5YFh43jfiTefE4majXkVCvL8kIWFdxyetypography_img_src_end
    width=“35” height=“35” alt=“popcorn” [/img]

    Mac, me?  Noooo.

    Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1702 hrs
    
    
    

19. “Why don’t you tell us how you’d like to reduce greenhouse gasses without such measures?”

    Might I suggest all Liberals stop producing this troublesome, noxious Carbon Dioxide gas as proof of their desire to save the planet from ourselves?

    No?? Somehow I didn’t think so.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 1729 hrs
    
    
    

20. So we have zero ideas.  So far.  And counting.

    Posted by scott on June 04, 2010 at 1730 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.