The indefatigable Lindsey Beyerstein, freelance journalist, tolling the mindless void that is the blogosphere, happened upon this piece from the Politico blog, extolling the virtues of Mr. O's choice for National Security Advisor from the perspective of the wants and needs of the ENERGY INDUSTRY as it faces the grim prospect of serious regulation in the face of the need to reduce emisions, if Mr. O's protestations about the centrality of "climate change" to his planning are to be accorded even a modicum of sincerity.
December 01, 2008Why, you might ask, would the proclivities, sympathies, and employment history of the nominal National Security Advisor with respect to energy be of significance for appointing the National Security Advisor? The implications of this are significant, as Beyerstein outlines in her piece.
National Security Adviser darling of energy companies
Barack Obama picked a national security adviser who fought the Senate climate change bill tooth and nail when he worked for the Chamber of Commerce.
The NSA coordinates National Security policy, which must include energy resources, if the rhetorics of crisis and threat are to believed. What is to become of 'alternative energy initiatives' if the National Security Advisor advise that the President may give the country energy ("clean" coal, more oil, nukes) or he might act in such a way as to possibly, maybe, save the planet from catastrophic damages sometime in somebody ELSE's administration. An exec of the giant regional power company Duke Energy was reported to have told an audience of sympathetic auditors that the country could have an economy or a world, but not both. Mr. O has already proclaimed his loyalty to (the endlessly oxymoronic) "clean coal technology," of the Ohio River coal economy.
It seems inevitable that the next national security adviser will have more to say about domestic energy production. I don't expect to hear much from Jones about energy conservation as a national security issue, even though it's the logical flipside of increasing production.Gee, I dunno. That's sure a puzzlement! I certainly wouldn't bet against it, though...
Jones hails from the rightwing Chamber of Commerce. He and his allies in the oil industry want to expand domestic drilling because oil prices are rising and they hope to make quick profits with taxpayer subsidies.
Will Jones argue on bogus national security grounds to lift bans on offshore oil drilling and drilling in ANWR?
It has NEVER really mattered who, precisely, Pres.-Elect Obama is or was. It matters overwhelmingly who he listens to, who persuades him. His positions prior to his election offer suggestions as to his authentic sympathies, and they--along with the advisors he's chosen--do not bode well for the "green" future we need to be building right now.
The appointment of Jones does NOT suggest that building a green energy infrastructure is actually going to be a big priority--unless and until "Big Energy" can absorb its potential competitors. The short shrift naming Jones accords environmental concerns was echoed today by another announcement:
Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering a stimulus package that will include a heavy dose of spending on environmentally friendly projects aimed at creating “green-collar jobs” and saving energy.Consider the difference that phrasing of slightly different emphasis would make: "President-elect Barack Obama
Seewaddahmeen? Said in the conditional mood, there's all kinds of ways to rationalize side-tracking such "radical" (imagine Jim Inhoffe's reactions to such a program: it'd blow his lil inbred haid plumm awf!) proposals. But said in the declarative mood, the speech has the effect of an act, not a mere description of a set of possible outcomes.
Folks are saying inside the Dim party and out that Mr. O's gonna govern from the 'center,' and that I just gotta get "used to it." And I am recalling with growing distrust and angst the LAST time a cult of personality told me I had to get used to it, and I didn't, and I won't now.