Obama seeks to exploit GOP divide on renewable energy

(CBS News) There was some big talk on energy Tuesday on the campaign trail. President Obama talked wind power and Mitt Romney said if he is elected, America will be so energy independent by the end of his second term that we'll no longer have to buy oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

The president has talked about wind energy at every stop on this Iowa bus trip. Former Governor Romney focused on oil and coal. Both men are trying to draw attention to an issue that could sway the race in several battleground states -- energy.

At a wind farm in Haverhill, Iowa, President Obama touted his support for a valuable tax break for wind producers, a break Romney opposes.

"He's called these sources of energy imaginary. His new running mate has called them a fad," Obama told the crowd.

Iowa is home to the nation's largest wind sector, employing 6,000-7,000 people and providing 20 percent of the state's energy.

So Republican leaders in Iowa were startled when the Romney campaign came out against renewing the tax credit when it expires later this year.

Republican Senator Charles Grassley said: "I felt it was just like a knife in my back."

Paul Ryan: Creature of D.C., GOP "idea man"
Obama argues Ryan is working against farmers
Comparing Romney and Ryan's ideas on Medicare

The White House sees this as a winning issue.

"I want to stop giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies that are going to oil companies that are making huge profits and have been subsidized for a hundred years and let's keep on investing in the new homegrown energy that's creating jobs right here in Iowa," Obama said at a campaign stop.

The Romney campaign accuses Mr. Obama of favoring renewables at the expense of more proven energy sources -- like coal, which produces 45 percent of the nation's electricity.

"We have 250 years of coal. Why the heck wouldn't we use it?" Romney asked a crowd recently.

On Tuesday, Romney met with coal miners in Bealsville, Ohio, and said the administration's strict new emissions regulations, issued in March, are forcing plants to close because it's too expensive to retrofit them.

Romney made this ambitious promise about his energy plan: "By the end of my second term, I make this commitment: We will have North American energy independence. We won't have to buy oil from Venezuela and the Middle East. We're gonna be independent."

Experts say it's theoretically possible to wean the U.S. off dependence on Middle East oil in eight years, but only if production is boosted dramatically and demand drops significantly, too. Right now, many experts say former Governor Romney's plan doesn't focus on reducing that demand.

[nancy_naive]

Drill, Baby, drill.

[14FREEK]

FUST FIGURE OUT HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO GET A JOB WITH MY HEART PROBLEM SO I CAN HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER IT.

PROBLEM ONE: NOBODY WILL HIRE A PERSON WITH A HEART PROBLEM.

PROBLEM TWO: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE NOT COVERED EVEN IF I COULD GET A JOB WITH THE HEART PROBLEM I HAVE.

PROBLEM THREE: NO JOB NO MONEY FOR MEDICAL CARE OR INSURANCE WHICH I COULD NOT GET ANYWAY AND WOULDN'T COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IF I COULD GET INSURANCE.

THANK YOU. NOW WHAT DO I DO. FORGOT, HAVE MBA AND 200 IQ

[nancy_naive]

200 IQ? And yet, seemingly incapable of toggling the "Cap-Lock" key.

[tafhdyd]

Republican Senator Charles Grassley said: "I felt it was just like a knife in my back."

Sorry Senator but I think maybe it was a broken spout from a tea pot.

[josephp5]

The government should be investing in clean energy companies like Solyndra. Yes indeed, I said it---Solyndra! Solyndra did not go bankrupt because the technology was bad or the company was bad. It went bankrupt because their is fierce competition from countries like India and China. Those countries are heavily investing in clean energy. The U.S. should do the same, or we will be left behind.

And people that claim that the free market forces should be left to decide are ignoring that oil companies are the most subsidized form of energy that there is! How about we cancel those ridiculous subsidies to oil companies---it's crazy, they are enjoying record profits!---and use that money to invest in clean energy sources like the rest of the developing world is doing.

This "free market always finds the best way" thinking is nuts! In general it is good to let the market decide, but sometimes we need the Government to give it a push in the right direction? Do people really think that the free market would have built the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam, or invented the Internet, or created the GPS system? Are all these things examples of Socialism, and therefore terrible? Of course not!

We need the Government to invest in good ideas in order to get them going. Clean energy is such an idea. Otherwise we will always be trapped in our oil addiction, which is exactly where the oil companies want to keep us.

[josephp5]

And one more thing about Solyndra---who cares that we lost some money on one bad investment? Half a billion? We spend that much every 36 hours in Afghanistan! It is ridiculous to be so upset about one little investment that went wrong. We spend $80 billion a year subsidizing Big Oil. That's enough for 160 Solyndras!

The only reason Republicans have whipped their naive followers into a frenzy over something as inconsequential as the Solyndra bankruptcy is that 1) Republicans are completely owned by Big Oil, which wants to keep America addicted to its products and doesn't want any competition, and 2) It's just something else for which to criticize Obama, making it seem like some sort of crony deal because some of the employees donated to his campaign (as if Big Oil does not give huge amounts of dough to Republicans!).

[nancy_naive]

Don't forget, one of the biggest pushes to get money to Solyndra was the Dept. of Defence... they understand that in the future we cannot fight a war with petro-based equipment.

[josephp5]

Republicans want the free market to apply to solar and wind energy, without any government subsidies. But every single Republican Senator (except for two: Collins and Snowe) voted to continue the government subsidies for Big Oil, which cost U.S. taxpayers $80 billion per year!

What it comes down to is that Republicans are owned by Big Oil, and will do anything to help them keep America addicted to their products.

[kbbpll]

Obama - "I want to stop giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies that are going to oil companies" - try $100 billion a year in military protection subsidies Mr. President, not counting the costs of either of the Iraq wars.

I wish ONE politician from any party would raise this, but apparently it's too toxic for even a liberal. The military is not even required to separate this cost. Anybody whining about subsidies to wind or solar ignores the elephant in the room. Imagine if we subsidized them at the level we do oil - we'd be energy-independent in a lot less time than some blowhard Romney claim. The money spent on the latest Iraq war alone would have hybridized every passenger vehicle in the US (40% less oil consumption) AND built a solar energy grid that would supply two-thirds of our electricity.

I'm not impressed with either candidate on this. It is the biggest national security issue facing our nation, and they both spew the same tired old pap.

[josephp5]

You're right---of course it is far more than the $4 billion that Obama mentioned. The Percentage Depletion allowance deduction alone costs the U.S. taxpayers about $80 billion per year. And like you said, none of this takes into account the costs (in both money and American blood) of things like the military protecting Big Oil's assets in countries like Iraq. When we heard during the Iraq war that an American convoy was attacked, what did we think was in that convoy? It was oil tankers and equipment owned by Big Oil!

[josephp5]

You're right---of course it is far more than the $4 billion that Obama mentioned. The Percentage Depletion allowance deduction alone costs the U.S. taxpayers about $80 billion per year. And like you said, none of this takes into account the costs (in both money and American blood) of things like the military protecting Big Oil's assets in countries like Iraq. When we heard during the Iraq war that an American convoy was attacked, what did we think was in that convoy? It was oil tankers and equipment owned by Big Oil!

[LBMonizRetiredJournalist]

GOP fat cats love to talk about the 100 years of oil and 250 years of coal there is left and "why wouldn't we use it? They answer their own question.
I especially love the phrase "clean coal." As a kid we had a coal furnace and I've shoveled tons of it into the furnace and shoveled out tons of ashes. I'm not saying it's responsible for the 50 percent lung capacity I have today due to environmental pollution, but it certainly was a contributing factor. Conversely, I've never heard of wind damaged lungs nor anything but rare cases of people injured by exposure to the sun. Wind blows almost everywhere and when the sun stops shining, it won't affect our energy consumption as we'll all die quite quickly from a frozen solid environment.
The only difference is the profit to be made by the traditional energy producers who don't want economical competition. Bring on solar and wind farms. Neither is as ugly as strip mining for coal or watching a gusher pollute the land around the ugly wellhead.
Just one final observation on traditional fuels. Fracking for natural gas has resulted in well water becoming so contaminated it ignites if you hold a match to the water as it comes from the tap. Does anyone really want to give their family that kind of water to drink??

[GOP-R--Con-Men]

Who is Paul Ryan?

A catholic who rejects the teachings of Jesus Christ for the philosophy of atheist Ayn Rand. Nice pick Mitt

[josephp5]

jgg: I believe that there are some slight, shall we say, "inaccuracies" in your Obama biography. I would try to point them out to you, but what's the use? You're so narrow minded that your scratch pads are only one inch wide!

[AmazingGrce]

My Problem with government intervention into alternative energy resources (And particularly the Obama Administration) is that:
1) Federal goverment involvement always inhibits the process and certainly does not result in the most cost effective results. (Note the cost of the military's alternative jet fuels - outrageously more expensive than their conventional fuels)
2) The neutrality of the government is not guaranteed - we need look no further than Solyndra (sp?) to see how poorly the government does at picking companies that are truly wise investments. The decision was purely made to gain a quick 'solution' that quickly went bust due to the lack of due diligance on the part of government decision makers.
3) The federal government is very poor at long term projections for energy - or at best fails to adequately take into account significant outside influences on alternative energy. For example Ethanol is about to become much more expensive due to the drought we are experiencing across ths nation. Making this more ridiculous is that apparently we (The US) feel we have to go to an international agency to obtain permission to back off the mandate for use of ethanol in our gasoline. Apparently the Obama administration feels the US has no authority to act to resolve the current problem.

By my count that is 3 strikes Prez Obama and you are outta here Bud. You and the federal government have NOTHING to crow about when it comes to alternative energy developement - you have a poor track record and we have no need to allow you to continue to make bad decisions adds dramatically to the cost of energy, that waste our tax dollars, and gives away our nations ability to make critical energy use decisions to some world power that is not concerned with what is best for our country.

[retmw1]

Fine then no goverment money for ANY R&D let Wall St fund it.

[csuresh]

how about the perfect landing of the Mars rover? That was Government planned and executed operation. Was that inefficient? Don't buy that bull from GOP about private sector always does better than government.

[mnguyen4]

"Experts say it's theoretically possible to wean the U.S. off dependence on Middle East oil in eight years, but only if production is boosted dramatically and demand drops significantly, too."

These experts must be working for Mitt Romney. Studies show that the US doesn't have large oil reserves on land, under the lakes, or off-shores. Only the Middle East has these known oil reserves. Currently, the US is even importing Canadian crude oil which is not as pure as Middle East crude oil.

Saying that the US can be entirely self-sufficient in just 8 years under the Romney administration is entirely a false promise. Republican politicians like to say anything, even lying to the public, in order to get elected.

Let's not forget Dick Cheney promise that the invasion of Iraq would not cost US taxpayers a dime. Since that promise, the former Vice-president never mentioned about it in interviews with the press.

[tafhdyd]

We only buy about 12% of our oil from the middle east and we could just about eliminate it buy improving gas mileage by 10% and converting to natural gas powered vehicles progressively. Most large fleet operators, utility companies, municipal bus lines etc. have switched to alternative fuels.

[sjc_1]

It only took a 10% reduction in the 1970s to cause gasoline lines and rationing. You are not going to convert many cars to natural gas and you know it, that will NOT happen no matter how much wishing and hoping you do.