Read Obama's America 2016 (Non-Fiction)(2012) Online
Authors: Dinesh D'Souza
Tags: #Non-fiction, #Political Ideologies, #Conservatism & Liberalism, #Political Science
Obama's America 2016 (Non-Fiction)(2012) (18 page)
BOOK: Obama's America 2016 (Non-Fiction)(2012)
9.06Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
—Barack Obama, speech in Roseburg, Oregon, May 2008
S
carcity is a major theme with Barack Obama. In his inaugural address he issued a specific warning to rich countries like the United States: “And to nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” One of Obama’s constant refrains is that “we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil but we have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.” Listening to Obama, we get the sense that the problem with energy is that there is just too little of it to go around. Americans have, as Obama puts it, become “addicted” to oil and this has made us dependent on oil from the Middle East. As Obama sees it, we have to break this addiction. Part of the solution, as Obama portrays it, is for America to shift to wind and solar energy, which are both harnessed from nature itself. But since wind and solar cannot for the foreseeable future solve our energy demands, the simple reality is that Americans must learn to consume less.
2
carcity is a major theme with Barack Obama. In his inaugural address he issued a specific warning to rich countries like the United States: “And to nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” One of Obama’s constant refrains is that “we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil but we have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.” Listening to Obama, we get the sense that the problem with energy is that there is just too little of it to go around. Americans have, as Obama puts it, become “addicted” to oil and this has made us dependent on oil from the Middle East. As Obama sees it, we have to break this addiction. Part of the solution, as Obama portrays it, is for America to shift to wind and solar energy, which are both harnessed from nature itself. But since wind and solar cannot for the foreseeable future solve our energy demands, the simple reality is that Americans must learn to consume less.
2
The only problem with this “reality” is that it is not congruent with the facts. America has vast resources of oil that are not being tapped. Moreover, America has pioneered the new technology of hydraulic fracturing—fracking—which not only facilitates oil exploration, but also opens up a 100-year supply of cheap natural gas. Already fracking accounts for 20 percent of domestic natural gas production, and it is growing so fast it could soon account for half of it. Fracking, like oil exploration, is a labor-intensive industry that creates hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. This has already happened in places like Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. While America is a large oil importer, the nation has the chance with natural gas to be a big exporter. Together, America’s untapped oil and natural gas reserves offer an unprecedented opportunity for the country to reduce its reliance on foreign energy and also to boost its economy at a time when it could use a little boosting.
Oddly, however, the Obama administration has been blocking oil drilling in America, and it is already moving to restrict and control the use of fracking. Indeed, Obama actively promotes policies that reduce America’s access to energy, raise energy prices, and cost jobs which often end up moving abroad. These policies seem not only ill-advised, but politically risky for Obama. So why would he do this? The obvious explanation is that Obama is a dedicated environmentalist, deeply worried about global warming and oil spills and wary of the environmental and safety risks involved in the relatively new technology of fracking.
Yet this environmental explanation of Obama’s behavior is clearly wrong. Even as Obama blocks and restricts energy exploration in America, he has been helping other countries exploit their energy resources. Specifically, the Obama administration has bankrolled oil drilling in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. This oil is destined not for export to America, but for Brazil’s, Colombia’s, and Mexico’s own use, which includes selling some of it to the Chinese. Obama also supports massive wealth transfers from the West to the developing world so that developing countries can grow and meet their increasing demands for energy.
So what explains Obama’s double standard? Why is Obama generally opposed to drilling and increased energy use over here while he supports drilling and more energy use in other countries?
Here is where our anti-colonial theory pays big dividends. Our theory predicts that Obama should want to enrich the previously colonized countries at the expense of previous and current colonizers. Anti-colonialists insist that since the West grew rich by looting the resources and raw materials of the colonies, it is time for global payback. The West must have less and the rest must have more. Unlike in the colonial era, we are no longer concerned with cotton, corn, or groundnuts; today there is a global demand for oil and other forms of energy. So Obama is attempting a global redistribution of energy. Now if this anti-colonial way of thinking is deeply imprinted in Obama’s mind, we might not be surprised to see Obama push this agenda despite the political risk.
From the time he assumed office, Obama began his ideological crusade against the American oil industry, cancelling dozens of oil and gas lease sales, even at the cost of thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico gave Obama a good pretext to impose a moratorium on oil-drilling; even when the moratorium was eventually lifted, the Obama administration issued only a small number of drilling permits. In the energy industry, this came to be known as Obama’s “permitorium.” The number of exploration and development permits issued by the Obama administration was at only about half the level of permits issued prior to the moratorium. Companies had equipment that went unused, and jobs were lost. Eventually much of that equipment and those jobs moved abroad, creating work someplace else and boosting economies other than that of the United States.
In the months leading up to the midterm election, Obama announced a plan to open parts of the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. Even though the plan was a modest one—the coastline north of New Jersey, the entire Pacific Coast, and Alaska’s Bristol Bay were all closed to drilling—some environmental groups like the Sierra Club protested, with one executive fretting about the effect on “marine life and coastal tourist economies.” Still, the tone was muted. After all, as the
New York Times
reported, “drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years” because the Obama Interior Department planned to “spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies” to determine if each area was “deemed suitable for development.” If not, no drilling could take place. So what Obama was “giving” through his announcement his administration could easily “take away” through delays and regulation. And with the exception of approving Royal Dutch Shell’s proposal to drill four wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast, the Obama administration has imposed regulatory hurdles and allowed very little actual drilling in the new areas.
3
New York Times
reported, “drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years” because the Obama Interior Department planned to “spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies” to determine if each area was “deemed suitable for development.” If not, no drilling could take place. So what Obama was “giving” through his announcement his administration could easily “take away” through delays and regulation. And with the exception of approving Royal Dutch Shell’s proposal to drill four wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast, the Obama administration has imposed regulatory hurdles and allowed very little actual drilling in the new areas.
3
In November 2011, the Obama State Department announced that it would delay indefinitely a final decision on the Keystone pipeline which would transport Canadian oil through American markets. Alberta, Canada, has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and the Canadians wanted their pipeline—parts of which have already been built—to bring Alberta oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would also transport oil and natural gas drawn from shale formations around the Rocky Mountains. Canadian oil is so plentiful that experts say it could meet U.S. oil needs for two centuries. What American would not rather buy from the Canadians than from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or from the Muslims of the Middle East? The Keystone pipeline, experts said, would quickly produce 20,000 new American jobs, with as many as 65,000 more by 2020.
Yet the Obama administration refused to approve the project, delaying a final decision for perhaps another two years, stunning the Canadians who assumed its merits were obvious. Congress attempted to pressure Obama to expedite the pipeline review and make a decision. But Obama refused, saying the congressional deadline was “arbitrary.” Not surprisingly, the Canadians are furious. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada would not allow its energy future to be held hostage to a process that could be “hijacked.” Canada, he said, would “continue to work to diversify its energy exports.” Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said that meant relying less on the United States and “expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market.” Translation: If the Americans don’t want to work with us, we can always sell to the Chinese.
4
4
Many in America professed surprise and bafflement at Obama’s Keystone decision. “Here’s the single greatest shovel-ready project in America,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “and for some reason he’s suddenly not interested.” Critics said that Obama must be a fervent environmentalist or a victim of pressure from the environmental lobby. “To give the go-ahead before the election,” wrote columnist Joe Nocera, “was to risk losing the support of environmentalists who make up an important part of his base.” Yes, there was certainly environmentalist opposition to Keystone. But the State Department’s detailed review showed that the project would cause no significant environmental impact, and Obama needs to be concerned about another constituency—workers—as much as he does about environmentalists. Nocera himself concluded that Obama was wrong to refuse Keystone, and he said he couldn’t blame the Canadians for doing business with the Chinese. “At least one country in North America understands where its national interests lie. Too bad it’s not us.”
5
5
If you’re thinking along anti-colonial lines, you will immediately recognize that Obama understands perfectly well what our national interests are; it is precisely to undermine those interests that he opposes Keystone.
There are environmental interests involved as well, but not in the way that most might think. In his September 23, 2009, speech at the United Nations, Obama said, “We must . . . energize our efforts to put other developing nations . . . on a path to sustainable growth. Those nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change . . . . That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help those nations . . . . We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet.”
So here is Obama’s idea. The rich countries, specifically Europe and the United States, pay to reduce their own carbon emissions. Then the same rich countries make large transfers of wealth to the developing countries so that those countries can continue to grow in an environmentally responsible way. The amount the Obama administration has agreed to—a number derived from a United Nations scheme—is around $100 billion a year. This money would enable the developing countries to develop, but with a limited impact on the environment, because while developing countries use more energy, the West would use less. The developing countries will be happy because their economic growth will be subsidized by the rich countries, and the rich countries should agree because, as Obama put it, “the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century . . . have a responsibility to lead.” Call it global climate reparations. But for Obama this $100 billion is only a first step. Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in 2009, Obama said that America would join with other countries “to set aside over a trillion dollars for countries going through difficult times, recognizing that we have to provide assistance to those countries that are most vulnerable.” For Obama, what it all comes down to is: we pay, and they develop.
6
6
This may seem like a very peculiar sort of environmentalism, and it is, because it’s not really about environmentalism at all. I noticed this a few years ago, when I saw a headline in the
Wall Street Journal
, “Obama Underwrites Offshore Oil Drilling.” As the article explained, “The Obama administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.” I read that the U.S. Export-Import Bank had given an initial commitment letter for $2 billion in loans and loan guarantees to the Brazilian state-owned company Petrobras to drill for oil in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. The
Journal
expressed bafflement. “Americans are right to wonder why Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won’t allow at home.”
7
Wall Street Journal
, “Obama Underwrites Offshore Oil Drilling.” As the article explained, “The Obama administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.” I read that the U.S. Export-Import Bank had given an initial commitment letter for $2 billion in loans and loan guarantees to the Brazilian state-owned company Petrobras to drill for oil in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. The
Journal
expressed bafflement. “Americans are right to wonder why Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won’t allow at home.”
7
I reported this incident in
The Roots of Obama’s Rage,
drawing a torrent of criticism from the left-wing watchdog group Media Matters. The group noted that several of the people who had approved the Export-Import transaction were Bush appointees. This, of course, might be true, but policy is set by the Obama administration. And as it turns out, billionaire George Soros, a major Obama supporter and funder of leftist causes in the United States, has a substantial investment in Petrobras, the Brazilian company receiving the American subsidy.
The Roots of Obama’s Rage,
drawing a torrent of criticism from the left-wing watchdog group Media Matters. The group noted that several of the people who had approved the Export-Import transaction were Bush appointees. This, of course, might be true, but policy is set by the Obama administration. And as it turns out, billionaire George Soros, a major Obama supporter and funder of leftist causes in the United States, has a substantial investment in Petrobras, the Brazilian company receiving the American subsidy.
So was Obama repaying a big donor and political ally? I don’t know, but Obama’s defenders who claim he was not involved in the Brazil subsidy were recently confounded by Obama himself. Obama visited Brazil in March 2011 and praised America’s financing of Brazilian oil exploration. “We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely,” Obama told the Brazilians. “The United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.” Back in America, Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski said he found Obama’s remarks “puzzling.” Petrowski made the obvious point that “it would be a lot better if we had the drilling here.” And Senator Mark Begich, Democrat of Alaska, said that “President Obama didn’t have to go all the way to Brazil to find a new, safe and stable source of oil. Energy opportunities are right here in Alaska.” As for the Brazilians, they welcomed Obama’s subsidy, but they have decided to sell most of their surplus oil to the Chinese. Just a month after Obama’s visit, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff headed to Beijing to sign contracts to sell oil to two gigantic Chinese state-owned companies.
8
8
If the Obama administration made a single loan to Brazil for oil drilling, that could perhaps be discounted as an isolated episode. But around the same time, the Export-Import Bank guaranteed a $1 billion loan to Mexico. And this money was for Mexico to drill in, you guessed it, the Gulf of Mexico. One news report said, “Despite President Obama’s moratorium on U.S. deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Export-Import Bank intends to guarantee $1 billion in loans to PEMEX, the Mexican state oil company, to bolster the company’s oil drilling in the region.” Earlier, we learn, the Export-Import Bank “also guaranteed two loans totaling $300 million made by a commercial lender.” And in May 2011 the Export-Import Bank disclosed that it had just approved $2.84 billion in financing for an oil refinery project in Colombia. The bank’s press release noted that the money was for direct loans and loan guarantees for Colombia’s Refineria de Cartagena SA (Reficar), a majority owned and controlled subsidiary of Colombia’s national oil company Ecopetrol. The release boasted that “the financing approved for Reficar amounts to the second largest transaction ever approved by the Bank.” Just a few months earlier, the Export-Import Bank approved an additional $880 million in other loans and guarantees to Reficar’s parent company Ecopetrol. So the total amount of financing provided by the U.S. government to the Colombian oil company and its subsidiaries amounted to $3.72 billion.
9
Clearly there is a pattern here—the Obama administration is doling out billions in U.S. taxpayer money to finance oil drilling in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia.
9
Clearly there is a pattern here—the Obama administration is doling out billions in U.S. taxpayer money to finance oil drilling in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia.
BOOK: Obama's America 2016 (Non-Fiction)(2012)
9.06Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
Other books
Aramus by Eve Langlais
Lucky Girl (New Adult Rock Star Romance) by Rollins, Emme
Misión de gravedad by Hal Clement
The Sun and Other Stars by Brigid Pasulka
Nurse Hilary by Peggy Gaddis
Soon the Rest Will Fall by Peter Plate
The Peddler by Prather, Richard S
The Dream Killer of Paris by Fabrice Bourland
A Sensible Arrangement by Tracie Peterson
Devotion by Marianne Evans