Editors at Richmond Times Dispatch Give Tough Analysis Obama’s Energy Speech

President Obama in Newton, Iowa on Earth Day (image: cbsnews.com)

The Heat Zone took an cautiously optimistic position on President Obama’s Earth Day talk about energy initiatives, especially his promise that if we pull together, we can look forward to a cleaner country, a stronger economy and lower prices for petroleum products like gasoline and heating oil.

Obama’s plan, of course, hangs on reducing demand for oil, especially foreign oil – when demand goes down, so do prices — and filling the fuel supply gap with new green technologies. As the Zone cautioned in the original post, “developing new technologies, implementing them, and changing behavior takes time. So while the Administration’s plans are good news for longer term oil costs, savings are not going to show up in your bank account next month.”

An article this week in the Richmond Times Dispatch was less kind.  The paper’s editors took the president to task on pretty much every point made in his April 22nd address, delivered in Newton, Iowa. These editors were tough on Obama and not all of their objections hold water. But on a couple of issues, they made sense pointing out the inherent contradictions in some of the Administrations’ proposals. For example, the editors examined the president’s statement, “As I’ve often said, in the short-term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas.” The Dispatch editors point out that Obama’s Interior Department has blocked plans made by the previous administration to open up parts of the outer continental shelf and other areas to drilling. Obama, they say, also “supports higher taxes on domestic oil production that are likely to slow production at home and make it more profitable to shift production — and jobs — overseas.”

When Obama goes on to say that we need to “cut our carbon pollution by about 80 percent by 2050, and create millions of new jobs right here in America,” the editors countered with this: “The president neglects to mention how many jobs will be destroyed by higher energy costs in general and by severe declines in the production of coal and gas, which are certain if carbon pollution is to be reduced so dramatically.”

But here’s where the rubber meets the road. It’s got to do with the difficulty of changing behaviors for the better that we often advocate here on the Heat Zone. Obama said “We are providing grants to states to help weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes, which will save the families that benefit about $350 each year. Consumers are also eligible as part of the Recovery Act for up to $1,500 in tax credits to purchase more efficient cooling and heating systems, insulation, and windows in order to reduce their energy bills.”
The editors responded with something called the “conservation rebound effect, which is the tendency for people to adjust their behavior in light of changing circumstances.” They point out that the availability of cars with improved gas mileage simply encourages people to drive even more, offsetting any environmental or economic advantages they might have otherwise achieved. Likewise, they theorize, “If the government subsidizes home weatherization, one result might be that, rather than pocketing the money, families will turn their thermostats up during the winter and down during the summer to enjoy more comfort for the same price.”

It would appear that President Obama believes that we are smarter and tougher than the editors of the Richmond Times Dispatch are willing to give us credit for. Who is right remains to be seen.