Obama's political energy calculus

President Obama's energy speech on Wednesday at Georgetown University continues his middle-road approach to reducing  U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  The president called for a mix of left-leaning approaches -- greater production of biofuels and higher energy efficiency standards for heavy trucks -- and right-leaning approaches -- greater use by oil companies of federal onshore and offshore drilling leases.

The problem may be that this approach isn't really satisfying either side. But this may reflect his political calculation that it is better to risk alienating both core Republican and Democratic constituencies in hopes of keeping the vast, moderate middle in his camp.  These, he hopes, are largely independent voters, with enough Democrats sprinkled in to maintain a majority of support for the course he's following. 

The conservative Heritage Foundation commended the president's call for more domestic drilling, but says the administration's actions haven't matched its rhetoric.  The administration needs to "stop dragging its feet" in approving new leases in places like the Gulf of Mexico, Nicholas Loris of the Heritage Foundation said, with no mention, of course, of last year's BP oil spill there.  Needless to say, Loris is not high on subsidies for biofuels and electric cars.  Electric cars, high-speed rail and similar initiatives are expensive "pet projects," Loris maintains, while biofuels subsidies will only hurt consumers and taxpayers.

On the left, the U.S. PIRG called one day before Obama's speech for a freeze on the construction of new nuclear reactors and a suspension on re-licensing of the oldest plants in the nation, in the wake of the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan.  In his speeach on Wednesday, Obama acknowledged the new nuclear safety concerns caused by Japan's crisis, and said he will commission a review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the safety of this country's reactors.  But he also said he remains committed to building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the U.S.  It's all part of the political calculus.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

What's Really Behind Rising Gas Prices?

     One of the biggest economic concerns for Americans today is the continued rise of gas prices. In already difficult economic times, many families are being pushed to their financial limit by rising gas prices. According to the Brookings Institution, in 2008 “Americans earning less than $15,000 a year were spending as much as 15 percent of their household income on gasoline”. This should demonstrate the how central gas prices are to the financial well-being of Americans and especially the poor. Furthermore, beyond the direct hit to our wallets, rising gas prices can have other consequences.

     As gas prices rise, they will inevitably drive up prices of other goods. We are already seeing a rise in food prices which is being caused, at least in part, by increased shipping costs as a result of higher gas prices. This is a source of great concern for all Americans and both sides of the political spectrum are quick to offer their own explanations and solutions.

     Members of the Political Right are quick to argue for an expansion of drilling for oil as the solution to our problems. Conn Caroll, of the Heritage Foundation has recently written an article which lays the blame for rising gas prices on the Obama administration’s failure to increase oil production in the United States.

     On the Left, the solution is often presented as a reduction in U.S. demand for oil.  A new article from the Center for American Progress is calling for investment in more fuel efficient vehicles and more public transportation. This reduction in oil demand, according to the Left, will drive down gas prices and make Americans less dependent oil in general.

     While the arguments of both the Left and Right have merit and may work in the short term, they both seem to overlooking the major cause of rising gas prices which is an increased global demand for oil. As nations like India and China modernize and industrialize their demand for oil will only increase. Regardless of what we do in America, the rest of the world will only demand more oil in the years to come and this will have a profound impact on oil and gas prices. In the long run, our best hope is find alternatives to oil for our energy needs through technological innovation.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Obama's Mixed Message on Energy Policy

     Events in Libya and Japan may have overshadowed President Obama’s recent trip to South America but the political consequences of this trip certainly deserve greater attention from the media and the American public. Perhaps the most important event of President Obama’s visit was his statement of support regarding the Brazilian government-owned oil company Petrobras. President Obama “expressed interest in helping Petrobras develop”  deep sea oil and natural gas reserves.  This statement coming after recent controversies regarding deep sea oil drilling in U.S. waters is sure to become a major issue when the events in Japan and the Middle East settle down.

     President Obama has taken a strong stand against deep sea oil drilling in the past; issuing, and defending in court, a moratorium on deep sea drilling following the BP disaster last year. This pro-environmentalist stance has predictably been praised by the Left while it is condemned by the Right. Obama’s stance against deep-water drilling does not seem to apply to the rest of the world however. There has already been some controversy regarding American loans to Petrobras for deep-water exploration and now the U.S. government has given Petrobras permission to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Defenders of President Obama have been quick to argue that these decisions have been made by various agencies and that the President cannot be held responsible. Such arguments, however, cannot explain the President’s statements of support for the Brazilian oil company.

     These recent decisions appear to be a major political misstep on the part of the President. By opposing deep-water drilling by American companies while he supports the same endeavors on the part of Petrobras he appears hypocritical and will ultimately upset both sides of the political spectrum. At a time when American’s are calling for greater energy independence, attacking America oil companies while supporting their foreign competitors can only harm the Presidents image.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Crisis in Japan Reignites Nuclear Debate in U.S.

     The recent devastation in Japan and its aftermath have reignited energy policy debates in the United States. The most immediate effect was the brief reduction in oil prices as the disaster reduced demand in Japan for oil. At a time when oil prices are only going up, this brief respite has, if anything, called more attention to the almost inevitable rise in oil prices in the years to come. Perhaps more significant, however, was the meltdown of a Japanese nuclear reactor following the disaster. As concerns of radiation leaks continue to persist in Japan, the mainstream media has, for the most part, stoked the flames of fear and paranoia in the United States. With the inhabitants of California bracing for nuclear fallout, debate over the use of nuclear power in the United States has begun anew.

          On the Left, opponents of nuclear power have not let this crisis go to waste. U.S. PIRG released a statement last week calling the crisis in Japan a warning to Americans about nuclear power. This statement, complete with statistics about how many people live near a given power plant and how old these plants are, unambiguously labeled nuclear power as “unacceptable”.

Conservatives, it would seem, have not been daunted by the situation in Japan and continue to call for an expansion of nuclear power in the United States. Writing for the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer has dismissed the concerns raised by the Japan incident as “hype” and has accused anti-nuclear power advocates on the left of “politicizing” a disaster which has no bearing on conditions in the United States.

     While the pundits and politicians of both sides seem to be keeping to the old talking points, the public has clearly been affected by the situation in Japan. A new Gallup poll shows that American support for new nuclear plants has dropped by more than ten percent since the crisis in Japan and supporters of expanding nuclear power are now in the minority. This has put supporters of nuclear power on the defensive, but it has done little to change their opinions or talking points.

     As the nuclear crisis is resolved and the media turns to new crises, supporters of nuclear power will likely go on the offensive. If Japan’s nuclear crisis turns out to be more hysteria than real danger then Conservatives may even win back support as oil prices continue to rise. Ultimately, the crisis in Japan will not change the debate on nuclear power. It has, however, brought that debate to the foreground of American discourse.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Nuclear crisis in Japan may take N-power option off the table in U.S.

The nuclear power crisis in Japan has resulted in predictable political responses in the U.S., but it may take nuclear power off the table, at least for the time being, as a likely option in moving this country toward an agreed-upon goal of energy independence.

When it comes to energy independence, Republicans and conservatives tend to argue in favor of more nuclear power and loosening restrictions on drilling for oil in the U.S., while Democrats and others on the left have renewed calls for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels altogether and shifting to renewable sources of energy.

President Obama has tried to chart a middle course in the debate, although even he hasn't been playing up his previously stated support of the nuclear power option.

In response to a speech by Obama on energy independence earlier this month, Republicans recited some familiar lines.  House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, countered that this nation's energy problems can be dealt with by increasing drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and other domestic locations and by reducing EPA and other regulations on businesses. 

Boehner's position stems from the long-held positions of conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, which has maintained that energy independence can be achieved through more domestic production and that peak oil is not an imminent problem.

David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation has argued, for instance, that the technology for extracting oil from hard-to-reach areas has been improving rapidly and that the real obstacles standing in the way of that domestic oil extraction and its contribution toward energy independence are federal regulations and moratoria on off-shore drilling.

At the same time, the Democratic calls for renewable technology reflect positions such as that of Robert Lempert of the RAND Corporation, who has suggested a strategy under which nations "would invest towards a clean energy revolution," which would involve international negotiations over carbon tariffs and other measures to promote "zero emissions economies." 

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting, LLC

Situation in Libya renews debate over energy independence

The contribution of the unrest in Libya and other countries in the Middle East to rising oil prices have renewed the debate in this country over energy independence, with Republicans and Democrats proposing their own differing opinions of just what energy independence means.

In a defense of his energy policy on March 11, President Obama tried to take a middle course in the debate, calling both for new investment in clean energy and technology, and for more domestic oil production, although he didn't specifically repeat his calls for loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants in the U.S.  He also said the U.S. was prepared to tap into its Strategic Petrolueum Reserve.

That impetus for clean energy as a means toward energy independence was reflected in The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 , whose stated purpose is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security,” and to increase the production of clean renewable fuels.  According to Wikipedia, the legislation originally sought to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote oil independence and different forms of alternative energy.  However, those tax changes were dropped as a result of Senate opposition, and the final bill focused on automobile fuel economy, development of biofuels, and energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting.

Why we need CredoMatrix - please pledge now

David Kassel

Accountable Strategies Consulting, LLC

A possible setback for one stem cell alternative

Scientists developing stem cell therapy have wandered into a minefield of controversy. While embryonic stem cells may eventually be developed into treatments for currently incurable conditions, some portion of the population will always have ethical concerns about the cells' source. But in 2006, it appeared that a compromise had been struck: cells that are derived from adult tissues and treated to revert them to their versatile embryonic state. Even pro-life groups which oppose research into embryonic stem cells have generally embraced this particular alternative. Since then, research into the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has furiously tried to turn theory into therapy.

However, two papers published in Nature earlier this month show how much we have to learn about the process of making iPSCs. The first group of these cells was created by using viruses to insert genes into adult skin cells--and one of those genes is known to be involved in cancer. Since then, researchers have tried to make their methods safer, and it seemed to be working. But even now, iPSCs still carry a substantial amount of risk, as Ed Yong explains in Discover magazine:

It’s a notoriously inefficient technique. If you start with 100,000 skin cells, you’d only get a handful of iPSCs at the end of it. Scientists pick these lonely successes and grow them into a large colony again, in which all the cells came from a single ancestor. They repeat the process again and again until they get enough cells.

This is a stressful process for cells. It churns out a lot of highly reactive molecules that charge around and damage DNA as they collide with it. This may explain why Hussein and Batada found a lot of new CNVs [copy number variations, where entire genes are duplicated or deleted] at particularly fragile and exposed parts of the genome.

There’s another problem – by repeatedly growing colonies from small groups of cells, scientists squeeze them through a genetic bottleneck. Any mutations that arose in the cherry-picked cells get a helping hand, and they soon dominate the new population. It might even be that iPSCs with mutations in cancer genes are better at growing, and more likely to be picked by eager geneticists.

This explains why iPSCs contained mutations even if they weren’t created using DNA-infiltrating viruses. Fortunately, this problem also suggests an obvious solution – it may be possible to avoid any genetic changes by creating iPSCs more efficiently. Many groups are on the case. Some are adding accelerating molecules to the mix, while others are changing the environment that they grow the cells in. Yet others are working on ways of screening iPSCs on their quality and usefulness, to pick the best and most-suited cells for the job.

Of course, possible pitfalls exist for all forms of stem cell therapy. The first human trial involving embryonic stem cells began in October 2010, after a months-long delay prompted by concerns over patients' safety, and it is too soon to say whether the trial was successful. For doctors and patients anxiously holding out hope for stem-cell derived cures, it seems that those cures are perpetually "just over the horizon."

Follow us at the following:
Facebook      http://www.facebook.com/pages/CredoMatrix/113016182087026?ref=ts
Twitter          http://twitter.com/credomatrix
YouTube       http://www.youtube.com/user/CredoMatrix
LinkedIn       http://www.linkedin.com/groups/CredoMatrix-3796294?mostPopular=&gid=3796294
IndieGoGo    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/20090
VenCorps      http://www.vencorps.com/Page/ViewIdea?ideaid=1913

by Matt Feltz (@mattfeltz)