If Obama wants to get serious about getting us off foreign oil and eventually off fossil fuels altogether, he could hardly have picked a better candidate.

Dr. Chu left his home at Stanford to direct Lawrence precisely because he was very interested in alternative sources of energy and energy efficiency. He has expertise in his own right on these subjects. He also serves to send the message that the Obama administration wants to take science seriously again.

Dr. Chu will have one major challenge in his position. Though Lawrence is not a small or modest center and I’m sure he is not a total stranger to a limited amount of politics, he is still very much a Washington outsider. He is unfamiliar with Washington power circles and will probably need some very serious and wonkish advisers to guide him through the complex world of Washington politics. However I suspect it takes less time to learn the ropes of those power circles than it takes to learn as much about the relevant scientific concepts and technologies that Dr. Chu is specialized in. He is in a unique position to have the trust of the scientific community, which is notoriously insular and unlikely to trust the knowledge of a non-specialist.

Though as dedicated to the concept of alternative energies as Al Gore is, he differs from the latter in one important respect. Al Gore believes we already have all the technology we need to make the jump to alternative sources of energy and all that’s missing is political will. Dr. Chu agrees that political will is essential (and his position will allow him considerable leverage in that regard) but he believes that a major push in the relevant technologies involved is still necessary if alternative energies are to become profitable and therefore viable.

Below you can see him discussing alternative energies and the less mentioned but extremely important energy efficiencies, as well as the economics involved. 

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Perhaps “who believes that global warming is man-made” is a better way of putting it.

Anyway: the man hotly tipped to be named the new American energy secretary, Steven Chu, is a breath of fresh air. Quite literally, given his views on greenhouse gases.

Here’s Chu in action. As it were (I’m sure other ‘in action’ footage could include him being boffin-like, in a white coat in a laboratory somewhere). This is long, but fascinating (well, the part I’ve watched so far ):

(Source: Oliver Willis via Bob Cesca)

The JDD website, a paper close to the government, notes:

Des affiches représentant un portrait de Nicolas Sarkozy au-dessus de la mention “Yes, we can!”, slogan de campagne du président américain élu Barack Obama, fleurissent depuis quelques jours dans Paris. Un portrait peint dans les tons bleu-blanc-rouge du président français est représenté sur chaque affiche et les mots “Yes, we can!” sont écrits en réponse à différentes questions telles que “Une énergie propre et durable en Europe?“, “Faire économiser 1000 euro/an à chaque ménage?” ou “Créer trois millions d'emplois non délocalisables en Europe?“. Des porte-parole au siège de l'UMP et à la Fédération de l'UMP de Paris ont affirmé ne pas être à l'origine de cet affichage sauvage.

As the infamous posters crossed the Atlantic three days later, via a contributor to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish on The Atlantic, naming Sarkozy “nothing if shameless,” the buzz started growing in some media and on the French blogosphere. 

Some cool stuffs, a blog about graphic arts, and more, follows up on the story, saying he was outraged.

Assuming Sarkozy and/or the UMP are behind the posters, the blogger words a scathing attack against this takeover of  Obey aka Shepard Fairey's notorious creation for Barack Obama's presidential campaign, denouncing…

un leader politique, cynique au point de détourner à son profit une image qui disait fondamentalement le contraire de ce qu'elle dit aujourd'hui, maintenant que sa tronche remplace celle d'Obama […]

 Electrostories showed  pictures of the poster displays, stressing the eco-friendly inspiration of their proposals, recalled the original poster with its word Hope and 150 hilarious posters it generated with various characters and slogans, and noted:

Un happening plutôt original dans la démarche !

The websites of a few mainstream media joined in. Weekly L'Express pondered business and law issues, but doubted that a big environment company would want to launch an illegal flyposting, and recalled that using the president's image without his permission can be very costly, adding:

Cela ressemble en tous cas à une belle opération de buzz.    

Updating late on Monday night, the magazine expressed its feeling of having been manipulated:

Surtout, en vous demandant de nous aider à le résoudre, nous savions vaguement que tout cela ne devait, au mieux, n'être pas sérieux, au pire, entrer dans un subtil plan marketing.

Marianne2 wondered whether it is a business buzz for green economy and stresses: 

Les quartiers où l'affiche a été placardée n'ont pas été choisis au hasard  […] Tous à gauche, tous “obamaniacs”. […] Le service de communication de l'ONG Greenpeace, occupée à une autre campagne, dément également être à l'origine de cette opération.                               

With hours passing, the action prompted comments ranging from thorough analysis to mere sarcasm. André Gunthert, from EHESS, an upscale research institution, writes under the title: Sarkobama, a meaningless picture ?  an in-depth analysis  from a “visual history” point of view.

His conclusion :

Quel que soit son véritable objectif, tout se passe comme si sa lecture était contaminée par le second degré. Cette oscillation tient probablement à la nature de son message explicite - la peinture de Sarkozy en Obama - qui ne peut passer que pour sa propre caricature.                               

Satirical bloggers, such as sarkostique, also chose the tongue-in-cheek explanation:

[…] Il a l'air tellement ridicule ainsi.  […] En tous cas, y avait mieux à faire comme slogan.[…]                              

Is the incident political after all, as some latest developments could suggest? On Tuesday afternoon, on Twitter, the mystery seemed almost unveiled. After more photos posted on Flickr ”galerie de photos de Sarkobama“,  and even a video of shadows sticking up the posters, 

a sarkobama blog appeared, writing:

Tout d'abord, nous devons vous avouer que nous sommes assez surpris du buzz que nous avons créé bien malgré nous. Le but initial de nos affichages était de montrer aux parisiens les similitudes frappantes qu'il existe entre Barack Obama et Nicolas Sarkozy.  […]    La sarkobama team                       

A turn of events?  unique et commun was not convinced:

Non, franchement, comparer Nicolas Sarkozy, héritier illustre du Bushisme à la française, à Barack Obama, symbole d'un espoir d'un retour vers plus de justice sociale, plus de respect de la démocratie et des libertés politiques, comment ne pas créer le buzz?    

Rue.89 underlined the parallel drawn by the “Sarkobama team” between a “Black (or mixed race according to some)” and “a dwarf of Hungarian extraction.” Would things turn politically ugly?

On wednesday morning, after a gallant last stand with accusations of usurpation and hacking between the “real” and “fake” Sarkobamas, the plot was finally revealed by L'Express itself:  

L'association écologique [Greenpeace] a révélé ce matin qu'elle était à l'origine de l'affichage sauvage, dans Paris, […]. Objectif: pousser les chefs d'Etat européens à retoquer le plan Climat/Energie.

Ecologist NGO Greenpeace gave away this morning being at the origin of the flyposting in Paris,  […]. The aim: To urge European heads of state to review the Climate/Energy Plan. (at the European summit of Dec. 11-12.) 

 

 

Bloggers take their hats off to Greenpeace's operation :

Politiciens, pour une fois, montrez la même énergie et intelligence que Greenpeace  dans cette campagne!  

Coming after a summer of record high gas prices and in the midst of a global financial crisis, the shift to the left could not come at a worse time.  Waxman has a long record of harsh and unyielding partisanship and extreme demogogury.  He is prone to demonize opponents rather thanbuild bridges of compromise, as he did in his long anti-tobacco campaigns through the 1990s.  He also has little interest in issues of practicality, preferring to stick with a hard ideological agenda even in the face of contravening facts.  Given the scope of his committee’s jurisdiction over issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, Waxman’s record for extremism and intolerance poses yet another threat to the already fragile U.S. economy.

The most hard left elements of the blogosphere are already cheering this as a victory for their kind of incivility and intolerance.  They see Waxman as a much more pure ideologue that is likely to place a higher priority on confronting their enemies and is not likely to engage in hated compromise. And still smarting from the defeat of their attempted purge of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, they are not inclined to hide their torches and pitchforks now:

This is a huge defeat for the Blue Dogs, who were hoping to use Dingell as a roadblock to keep any meaningful change from happening with regard to issues under the Committee’s jurisdiction — telecommunications and health care, energy and environmental protection, interstate commerce and consumer protection.

Though she never took a public position, nobody has any doubts that Nancy Pelosi orchestrated this.

This week the Senate voted to remain a bunch of self-protecting hacks by letting Lieberman keep his gavel, but the House voted for progress.

For years, moderates and centrists complained about the over-the-top extremism that too often seemed to dominate the House Republican caucus.  Now, it seems we are going to get the same political strychnine just in a different partisan flavor.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

“Demand for solar energy remains dependent on government subsidies, because it costs more than conventional forms of electric-power generation,” said James Hines, research director at Gartner and lead analyst for solar energy technologies. “However, the new US administration could help encourage
investment in solar energy projects if it succeeds in implementing some of its plans, which is more likely with majorities in both houses of Congress.

This increased emphasis on renewable energy and the extension of the 30 per cent investment tax credit for solar projects ‹ passed last month ‹ could finally help realise the US’s vast potential for solar energy. As a result, the US could overtake Germany as the largest photovoltaic market within a
few years.”

President-elect Obama’s New Energy for America plan could have a significant
impact on the US solar industry. The plan’s provisions include:

· A federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that requires 10 per
cent of electricity consumed in the US to come from renewable sources by
2012

ThinkProgress.org has the lengthiest rundown. Spain’s president expects “a more fluid and positive relationship” under Obama, no doubt a reference to some feuding with Bush over Iraq. Germany’s chancellor has had fairly close relations with Bush, but even she envisioned “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

But as I said, a few world leaders have already communicated their expectations. Afghanistan’s president said: “The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in our country, rather, our country is a victim of terrorism and we demand for civilian casualties to be eliminated.” Obama’s remarks about the need to cut down on those casualties and do more than military intervention were of course a subject of some controversy after Republicans made a political issue out of it. Russia’s president didn’t congratulate Obama at all, and aside from a vague expression of hope that Obama could improve relations between the two countries, Russia’s primary response was to announce its intention to station missiles near Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans for Europe – plans that Obama has been decidedly cool toward. Israeli and Palestinian leaders expressed a desire to see Obama bring peace in the Middle East.

Even the upbeat European Union was hinting at some potential conflict, as one of its officials said she would be in touch with Obama to “make sure we are working together on opening free trade,” arguably the area of Obama’s policies that makes Europe most nervous. A few countries were decidedly cool about the election of Obama. Other countries hinted more vaguely at hoping Obama would work with the world on the international financial crisis, energy, terrorism, food shortages, global warming and more than a few other subjects.

On the DotEarth blog, Andrew Revkin muses on the significance of Obama's election, writing…

President-elect Barack Obama on Jan. 20 will become the most important leader of a species that has exploded in just six generations from a total population of 1 billion (around 1830) to a point today when teenagers alone number 1 billion, a species that is on a path toward more or less 9 billion people by mid-century. In numbers, think roughly of adding two Chinas on top of the one that exists today. Expectations that he will exert planet-scale leadership are high, as indicated in this letter from Nelson Mandela to the next president.

He is compiling a list of 10 best proposals to send to Obama's transition team. The proposals will be ranked by readers of his blog.

On the China Dialogue blog, reprints a 2007 Obama speech, reflecting on what Obama's presidency would mean for the environment.

What will a Barack Obama presidency mean for the global environment?

In a policy address delivered in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in October 2007 – shortly after George W Bush hosted a Washington conference on energy security and climate change — Obama set out his plan. It included a strong focus on energy efficiency and the use of a “cap-and-trade” system. Obama also emphasised his commitment to investing in clean technology, saying that new technology from the United States can help countries like China to fight climate change.

“[W]e will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world,” Obama said. “If we can build a clean coal plant in America, China should be able to as well.”

La Marguerite suggests channeling the magic of community organizing seen in the Obama campaign into tackling climate change.

Sarah Palin should not have mocked Barack Obama for being a community organizer. If anything, tonight’s results proved her wrong. Our new President has given new meaning, and strength to the concept of community organizing. And he has shown us what citizens can do, when given the means to organize towards a cause, that’s greater than themselves.

Tonight I am thinking of the thousands of Obama offices, volunteer networks, and fundraising organizations, along with the sophisticated Internet machine, and the organizing methodology, that went into getting Barack Obama elected. As the signs are coming down, the thank you emails go out, and the temporary offices go back to their original owners, I wonder, is that it? Will we go back to business as usual, each in our homes, going about our private lives?

Or will we use the skills learned during the Obama campaign to mount a national community effort, this time to address the threat of climate change? The last time I checked, we had less than ten years to get our act together. Citizens have a crucial role to play on the conservation end. As someone who has tried for the last year and a half, to curtail my consumerist and energy appetites, I can testify on the difficulty of accomplishing such changes at the individual level. Instead, we need to summon the power of community to help each other.

Omar Basawad of the Safari Notes blog says ‘Congratulations America!'

“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” So, said the next President of the US.

I, we, have no doubt any more about that. And I do, for the first time truly envy Americans for how you can rise and at what you can do. And how lucky and blessed you are, to have such a democratic system and such ideals! Truly, you are a great people. And that is the reason you will continue leading the World militarily, economically and technologically; and you have just proven too, that you are above the rest of the World, morally. And now you have sent such a great statement across the globe, which will cause ripples and shock waves for a long time to come.

Very hopefully, the ripples and shock waves - will be so powerful so as to bring too, the same kind of change that will, one day, allow our children too - to have such a kind of democracy working in our parts of the World; a democracy that is truly: true, enlightened and ideal.

Tracy Stokes in South Africa had tears of joy on hearing the news that Barack Obama is the next president of USA. She wrote…

I sprang out of bed this morning (very out of character for me) and rushed to the living room, grabbed the remote and had that TV on before you could say “election results”. Obama is the new president of the United States, Bush is on the way out. So here I am, miles and miles away from where it’s all happening, at the southern tip of Africa, a South African of European descent, and it moved me to tears. Why? Because from next January, the most powerful man in the world will no longer be a warmonger, bigot, and dare I say it, village idiot, but an intelligent, compassionate man who has brought to Americans the opportunity to join the rest of the world in working towards peace, upholding of human rights, and fighting climate change. So congratulations to the American people in choosing the right man for the job.

On the 350.org blog, Phil considers the signifance of Obama's win particularly regarding climate change.

It's up to us to make sure Senator Obama follows through with the vision of a world we desperately want that is now a little bit more within reach. Sending him to Poland is a needed first step towards rebuilding the world economy and solving climate change, tasks which will no doubt take years, if not decades, to accomplish.
At this historic turning point, it's up to us to shed the yoke of history and move forward by joining with our new leaders and pushing for a bold new solution to these dual crises. The world is counting on us.

On the GreenPeace Making Waves blog, amid thanks, a reminder of the promises Barack Obama made regarding the environment is stated.

Thank you, Barack Obama, for giving all of us new hope for a changed America.
We're non-partisan here at Greenpeace. We don't have any permanent allies or enemies. We support policies, not politicians. We endorse deeds, not words. So even while a lot of us (in our personal capacity as human beings and not Greenpeace employees) are jumping up and down this morning with glee, we want to take a moment to remind you of the promises you made in your election campaign.

It's delivering on these promises, or bettering them, that will be the true mark of your leadership. …

On ‘Its Getting Hot in Here' blog, Teryn Norris writes of reinventing America.

Few moments in history feel this monumental. It’s the feeling of renewed hope and immense possibility.
Barack Obama has once again tapped America’s power of invention. It’s the same power that led us to invent the first modern democracy. To invent the systems and technologies that continue to drive human progress. To constantly reinvent ourselves in the face of insurmountable hardship and division.
Invention is our greatest power — the very heart of the American spirit. It’s what can renew our promise once again and make this century the next American century.

Teryn concludes the post with:

Obama has rekindled the American spirit. Now he must lead this nation to fully reinvent itself and the world — to lead us in what will be the greatest American project.

Let’s get started.

From South Africa, The Urban sprout blog offers kudos to the the American public for electing Barack Obama.

…how often do we ask ourselves what difference the leaders of New Zealand, Denmark, Germany or Iceland, for instance, will make to us all? But you have to give credit where credit is due and kudos to the American public for electing Barack Obama!

But what can we expect from Obama’s environmental direction, and can he be held accountable to his campaign promises?

We end this post with a quote from the Urban sprout blog.

Obama’s administration has 4 years to turn these visionary promises into something tangible, and that's the real challenge - but right now, there's plenty to be optimistic about.

Some are using argument that one of them is better than the other , some are still connected to the republican party ( by feeling of gratitude for Bush Sr part in liberation of Kuwait )
some liberals are still liberal , want to support all librals around the world ( just like communist back in the day or as the old joke says , we support all revolution and even the revolution on the Bounty )

In Fact both are Bad for Kuwait , for many reasons
I’ll just list one for each ( to be bipartisan )

Obama main Focus in Clean Energy and renewable energy , do you know where over 90% of our GDP comes from ? yeah the thing he want to get rid off

McCain is more focused on national security , and what the next threat to the USA ? Iran , which country is closer to Iran and its nuclear plants ? , Kuwait

and sadly our government is not equipped to combat any of these scenarios
when one parliament member is able to shack things up and shows that they couldn’t even build a defense infront of a lone member ( who isn’t covered by a tribe or sect or political party )

some Arabic Links about the Parliment member Enter-Q8 here and Exzombie here

And here was the end of Obama’s final speech yesterday, in Virginia, where he spoke to a crowd of 90,000. Fired up, and ready to go:

And here was Jon Stewart’s take on the final days of campaigning:

Obviously, this cap system would also cause existing coal companies trouble - the logical consequence of his plan is that the coal industry as a whole will be ruined.

He told the San Fransisco audience that his plan was worth the economic damage because it would force Americans to use alternative energy sources and, so he hoped, his cap system would force businesses to innovate. Nonetheless, his plans would cost the coal industry as a whole tremendously.

The Chronicle had never reported the statements in its reports about the interview. Instead, it put some videos online, knowing that almost no one would watch them. In the end, people did, however, and found that the Chronicle had purposefully ignored statements that could cause Obama trouble.

Today, we do not only have the audio but also the video of the interview. I encourage you to watch it in its entirety, for it will eliminate the notion that the audio we published yesterday were taken “out of context” and that the “context” would prove that Obama’s plans for the coal industry were less radical.

The video proves no such thing. Rather, it proves what I wrote yesterday: Obama’s plans for coal and energy in general are highly ideological, and will cause tremendous damage to the U.S. economy.

Watch it:

Partial transcript:

“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.”

“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

This will “generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.”

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The statement can be considered as close to a declaration of war a business executive can declare on a politician. Carey called Obama’s comments “extraordinarily misguided” and Obama himself “nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote.”  The statement:

 the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation’s coal industry.

“Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

“These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.

“It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

“Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation’s coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to ‘bankrupt’ our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

“In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation’s long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

“Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.”

The OCA is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio’s underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

Via, PR Newswire.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Every single person who would want to “build a coal-powered plant” would be able to do so, Obama said, but his new system would “bankrupt them.”

The remarks could prove highly explosive in key battleground states such as Virginia , Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Indiana, all of which are dependent on the coal industry.

“What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there,” Obama was recorded as saying. “I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.”

This would mean, Obama went on to explain, that “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

That in turn would, the junior Senator from Illinois who could become America’s first African American president explained, “generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.”

He repeated: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

With just two days to go until the elections, and with several of coal states being key battleground states, where the race remains close, the audio could very well boost Sen. John McCain’s chances of surging in the polls and, eventually, winning these states if voters in these states hear about it. Obama has tried to downplay his anti-coal credentials and plans in recent months, but this audio shows that he is no friend of the coal industry, this while many thousands of voters depend on this industry for their livelihood.

You can listen to Obama say it himself below:

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The two statements combined could make Obama’s position rather problematic in the last days of the campaign. For months, Obama campaigned as a reasonably moderate Democrat, preferring pragmatism over idealism. His voting record and increasingly more statements, past votes and actions and associations, however, indicate that the real Obama is the one who became the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.

“The problem is not technical  and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington,” Obama told the San Fransisco Chronicle about energy. “The problem is, can you get people to say, ‘this is really important,’ and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. And climate change is a great example,” he said.

“You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know — under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

He went on to say: “You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Obama then went on to explain that this skyrocketing of the prices would hopefully result in people pursuing cleaner energy sources, which would then help combat climate change. “They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, ‘Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,’ or whatever their number is. If you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit,” he said.

As conservative blogger Ed Morrissey pointed out in a blogpost at Hot Air about the statements quoted above, “while no one doubts the need to start transitioning to better sources of energy, the manner in which that gets done means the difference of whether it gets done at all.  A stagnant or receding economy does not produce scientific breakthroughs, especially when government both increases taxes and imposes steep cost burdens on energy.  That cuts into both manufacturing and R&D, because as profits fall, fewer dollars go into research — which means that all of these wonderful developments would get delayed, or go unrealized altogether.”

If one wants to reform the American energy system, one has to do so prudently, and without destroying the economy. Obama agreed back in January of this year that his energy would plan would cause tremendous problems to the economy but, he hopes, these problems will be overcome years later. Perhaps, but also perhaps not. What can clearly be said is that Obama’s approach is once again distinctly immoderate and highly ideological. Pragmatists would look at the issue of global warming and energy, and would favor a plan that would bring change slowly and without destroying an entire economy. An idealist, on the other hand, would be willing to pursue plans that might not even work, one, and, two, that would do tremendous damage to the economy.

Developing alternative energy sources will take many years, decades even. Part of this energy will undoubtedly have to come from nuclear plantations - which is something Obama opposes, once again out of idealism.

Furthermore, the United States economy is already weak and extremely vulnerable. “Skyrocketing” energy prices would, as aforementioned Morrissey again worded perfectly, be a “disaster.”

Most amazing about today’s audios is not that Obama made the statements; many people such as myself have always said that Obama may be many things, but a moderate he is not. Pay special attention to Obama’s “whatever their number is”-remark. He does not even take the cost of his plan serious.

Instead, what is surprising is that American ‘old’ media have ignored them completely and even actively tried to bury them. This is more than worthy of coverage; energy is one of the most important issues in the coming years, the statements of candidates on it should be reported and shared with the public.

Listen to Obama himself:

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.