Obama’s “None Of The Above” Energy Policy

Via Resouceful Earth we received news of a story on EE New’s Greenwire reports that the Obama Administration is actively working, one must assume, to “Keystone” the Pebble Mine project in Alaska under the auspices of the Clean Water Act.

U.S. EPA is defending its review of large-scale development in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed amid strong concerns from state leaders, including Attorney General Michael Geraghty.

At issue is the controversial Pebble Limited Partnership’s gold and copper mine in southwestern Alaska, which could become one of the largest in the world. Opponents worry the project could hurt tourism and a valuable salmon fishery.

In a recent letter, Geraghty questioned EPA’s legal authority to conduct the assessment, since the company has yet to submit permit applications (Greenwire, April 3).

But in another letter earlier this month, EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran said the Clean Water Act gave him the authority to establish programs and conduct research for pollution prevention. He also offered the state an olive branch by agreeing to meet to discuss concerns.

Remember that last month the EPA was roundly smacked down by the Supreme Court for their fine first, investigate later use of the Clean Water Act. That rebuke has not dissuaded them from trying to use the Act to shut down the Pebble project before it has even formally been proposed. More from the Greenwire article:

Groups, including Alaska Native tribes, have been at odds over EPA intervention and a possible pre-emptive Clean Water Act permit veto of the project.

“In order to give due consideration to these conflicting requests,” McLerran wrote, “the EPA decided to collect and evaluate available scientific information on Bristol Bay fisheries and their vulnerability to large-scale mining development.”

With the draft watershed assessment scheduled for release next month and peer review and public meetings planned in its wake, both opponents and supporters of the mine have intensified their lobbying efforts.

The Pebble Partnership has touted the attorney general’s letter and said EPA’s assessment might lead to a veto of the project, which state and company officials call illegal and unprecedented (Greenwire, Feb. 9). The agency is not discounting the possibility of such an action.

The Pebble project, like Keystone before it, is just one large example of the trend under this president. While publically saying that they are pursuing an “all of the above” energy and resource strategy, down in the trenches (out of public view for the most part) what is really happening is that administratively and bureaucratically they are ensuring that “none of the above” ever see the light of day.

Marita Noon at Townhall shows that Obama’s reelection could well depend on preemptively shutting down Pebble and other similar projects to appease his green constituency. The environmentalists want total government control of all natural resources and want bureaucrats to determine what air, land, and ocean uses are acceptable.

Yet another thing that is at stake in this election…

If you oppose this unprecedented power grab by the EPA you can send a message about it to your Congressional representative here.

CNN'S Roland Martin: Racism is in 'America's DNA'
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • herddog505

    EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran said the Clean Water Act gave him the authority to establish programs and conduct research for pollution prevention. He also offered the state an olive branch by agreeing to meet to discuss concerns.

    That’s an “olive branch”???  Saying, “I’ve already made up my mind to f*ck you over but, HEY! I’ll be big about it and stop by to listen to you gripe about it, ‘cuz that’s just the kind of guy I am!  Don’t you feel better?”


  • GarandFan

    I’m sure that if certain ‘campaign donations’ where made by the Pebble Beach project foks, all the EPA red tape would suddenly ‘disappear’.

  • PBunyan

    When you think you’re President of the World, like Obama apparently does, the needs of the people of the United States don’t really matter that much to you.

  • jim_m

     Steered by an unbending belief that his ideology is utterly infallible, obama doesn’t care how much the rest of the nation may suffer.

  • 914

    More like “Nothing up above” Energy policy!

  • 914

    Obama’s energy policy is so much hot air..

  • Hank_M

    I’m now convinced that the most selfish people in our country are the so-called environmentalists, and by extension, the democrat party.

    This mine would create jobs, wealth, and improve the lives of everyone associated to the mining project. Local govts would see more tax revenue, the feds would see the same.
    And we wouldn’t have to obtain the minerals from foreign countries.
    To the casual observer, where is the down side?

    Nope! As the linked article explains, “It seems that many of the well-heeled in Alaska and Oregon don’t want
    the Pebble Mine Project built close to an area they consider their
    personal playground, Bristol Bay, Alaska.”

    I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met a poor environmentalist.

  • “You see, Mr. President, by announcing we’ve found the California Delta Smelt up in the region where they’re attempting the Pebble Mine project, we can force a cancellation of the whole project.”

    “Good.  They didn’t bundle, they don’t get a tumble, know what I’m sayin’?”

  • jim_m

    Why does this picture look like the bunker scene from the movie “Downfall”?

    “Mr President, we have EPA troops in these areas…”

    • jim_m

       Anyone who hasn’t bundled over $100,000 this cycle, please leave the room…

    • Hank_M

       Good point.

      And Hilda Solis is probably trying to figure out how to unionize the salmon.

      • jim_m

         NO.  I mean those ubiquitous Hitler parodies on Youtube.

      • Walter_Cronanty

         Why not, they already vote.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Don’t forget the NOAA troops…

      •  …and the OSHA troops, the armed IRS troops, the TSA troops, OWS troops, and Obama’s youth corp…

    • MunDane68

      Obama: ” Yes, that is good, and with that SCOTUS case where the family was prevented from building on land they owned by the EPA, we will soon control the country…”

      Nervous glance around room by HIlda Solis“Umm, Barrack…umm the case…”

      Light grey suit wearing guy“The case was decided 9-0 against the EPA.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Hmmm.  The EPA is going to “crucify” some miners.  Who’da thunk it?  I mean, really, who could have seen this coming? 
    “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my
    philosophy of enforcement. It’s kind of like how the Romans used to
    conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little
    Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run
    into, and they’d crucify them and then, you know, that town was really
    easy to manage over the next few years.”
    Al Armendariz, EPA Regional Administrator.
    Welcome to the Regulatory Nightmare that defines the US Energy Policy.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Boy, I am such a stupid!  If I had just read NPR’s lead story before I commented above, I would know that the bad economy resulting, at least in part, from our suicidal energy policy is just what we need [especially after today’s economic news came out]: 
    “Is Slow Growth Actually Good For The Economy?”
    Can you say taxpayer financed shill?  I know you can.

    • Hank_M

      Yeah, but….

      I recall reading recently that higher gas prices are also good. The higher prices indicate a resurgence in the global economy. This from CBS last feb 28th.

      I am so confused…..

      • jim_m

         Higher gas prices are the desired outcome and official policy, but when they are not appreciated by the public they are blamed on a convenient scapegoat.  If obama didn’t want higher gs prices he would be opening up more land for drilling.  He’s not doing that, ergo he wants higher prices.

        • Guest

          ” If obama
          didn’t want higher gs prices he would be opening up more land for
          drilling.  He’s not doing that, ergo he wants higher prices.”

          ergo, you’re making it up again.

          Obama is smarter than you are, and you’re pretty uninformed, ergo you
          can’t figure out what he’s doing so you just make something up and pretend it’s

          • jim_m

             I’m not going to bother to look up the famous quote where he said that under his policies energy prices will necessarily increase.  You can find that yourself dumbass.

            If you want to argue that he never said it go ahead and live in your ignorant fantasy world.  He said it.  I take him at his word that he meant it.  His actions indicate that he certainly did.  He has restricted oil exploration and has attacked the coal industry.

            You might agree with the policies but don’t lie to everyone here and say that obama hasn’t done it.

          • Guest

            ” Higher gas prices are the desired outcome and official policy,”?

            that’s bullshit.

            And saying that they will necessarily increase doesn’t mean that higher gas prices are the desired outcome.

            A policy the precludes “drill, baby, drill” might in the long run mean higher prices for oil. Getting us off the foreign oil teet will necessarily mean high prices.

            But gas prices today are no higher than they were in Bush’s last year of office, so clearly it’s not anything Obama has done that has caused gas prices to rise. They are the same level they were just a few years ago, under Bush’s policy.

            Will you now claim that it was Bush’s policiy to see prices rise?

            And obviously you listened and are parroting the lies that the Republican candidates have been telling.

            Gingrich said Obama wants gasoline prices to get to the European levels
            of $9 or $10 a gallon, but that “he just wants it to be gradual.” But
            that’s not what Obama said.


            Romney has repeatedly claimed Obama said during the 2008 campaign that
            under his energy policy, energy prices would “skyrocket.” “And they
            have,” Romney said. But Obama was talking about electricity, not
            gasoline. And the cap-and-trade plan he endorsed to limit carbon
            emissions — which died in the Senate in 2009 — included provisions aimed
            at protecting consumers from higher prices.


            Gingrich repeatedly has cited a comment Energy Secretary Steven Chu made
            in 2008 about wanting to boost the price of gasoline to encourage fuel
            conservation. But Chu made that remark before the 2008 election and
            before Chu became energy secretary. Upon joining the Obama
            administration, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to
            increase the price of gasoline.”

            I could go on and on, quoting each of the lies you believe and repeat, but it’s all been fact-checked here.

            You repeat half truths and make up the rest.

            The truth:

            It’s true that given the opportunity, Obama did not dismiss the notion
            outright that higher gasoline prices might be a good idea to create
            incentives for people to switch to alternative energy sources. But the
            context of the question was that gasoline had risen to $4 per gallon.
            The rapid rise in the price of gasoline was, he said, “such a shock to
            American pocketbooks” and “not a good thing,” and that he would have
            preferred that they had risen more gradually. That’s different from
            advocating for gradually higher gasoline prices in the future.

            Poor little Jim. He just repeats the lies he’s told and never bothers to read or think for himself.

            So many on the right are just parrots, repeating the lies they’ve been told. The sad thing about you Jim is that even when you’ve been shown that you’re just making it up and spreading BS you keep repeating the same lies regardless.

            Maybe you should just stick to your opinions, and let the adults in the room discuss the facts.

          • Here’s the youtube video of what 0bama had to say about sending energy “price signals”:


          • jim_m

            Nope.  Increased gas and energy prices are not the desire of this admin.  Forget what they said before they started taking crap for this policy, just listen to their denials and the denials of their ass kissing sycophants like Grumpy.

            obama 2008 interview with SF Chronicle   “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ” http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

            “Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  Secretary of Energy Steven Chu

          • And the funny thing is – if it hadn’t been for the internet providing an easily accessed repository of him saying that, it would have gone down the memory hole a long time back.

            Suddenly all the initiatives to provide an ‘off’ switch, or regulate content become a bit more understandable, don’t they?

          • The only group of folks I have ever known of who are consistently more stupid than 0bama are his sycophants.

          • Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?

            It’s always a good idea to try to figure out everything that can go wrong when you’re messing with complex systems – otherwise you end up with unintended consequences that bite you hard.  

            Reality doesn’t give a damn about your intentions, about how ‘smart’ someone is, about how ‘cool’ someone is, or how educated they can pass themselves off as – all reality cares about is what happens when you push the rock off the cliff, no matter who is standing below.

            Obama’s finding out that it was probably a good idea to ask around to find out WHY that wedge kept the rock from being pushed off the cliff, and why there was a sign warning against pushing the rock.

          • Evil Otto

             Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?

            He’s a leftist. He has never heard of that. The thought has never entered his thick skull. The day a leftist understands that basic point is the day they start walking off the leftist path.

          • jim_m

             Indeed. This is why the left can claim that communism has never failed by asserting that it has never really been tried. 

            When unfortunate consequences follow their misguided ideology it is never due to their ideology.  It is because they weren’t following the ideology properly.  Unintended consequences simply are explained away.

          • And also why the Progressives insist on being judged by their intentions, vice their outcomes.

          • jim_m

             That’s right.  THey only wanted to make the world a better place.  Exterminating tens of millions of people was not the intended outcome.

          • retired.military

            “Maybe you should just stick to your opinions, and let the adults in the room discuss the facts.”

            Precluding you from any discussions.

            BTW what is used to produce electricity?  Umm Oil and coal for the most part.  Thanks for playing.

          • retired.military

            ” you can’t figure out what he’s doing”

            It is pretty hard to fitgure out what he is doing when he doesnt have a clue himself.  We do know that we he is doing isnt bringing down gas prices or decreasing reliance on foreign oil. We also know that all that alternate energy money is going to companies going bankrupt and are ran by his cronies, bundlers and donors.

          • You say that like it wasn’t intended.

            It’s the Chicago way, after all.  A little bit towards the problem, (like crappy asphalt or lousy solar panels,) and a lot to line pockets.   Kickbacks and bribes are expensive!

  • Caption: Mr. Biden’s last known location before his Service detail lost him is … here … in the red light district.

  • Pingback: The Eternal Bureaucrat | Daily Pundit()

  • scc10182

    most of the environmentalists are commies who want to hurt america and they are led by a third generation commie traitor.these people need a traitors reward.

    • Guest

      Such as what? What would be a fitting “traitor’s reward” for the American environmentalists?

      • jim_m

         I think they should just be made to live in accordance with their ideology.  They want to get rid of petroleum  products?   Make them live without them, which mean no high tech, no health care,  crappy food, etc.  Make them take on the hand to mouth agrarian subsistence farming lifestyle they dream of forcing upon the rest of us.

        • The Rainbow Six solution works.

          • retired.military

            Good solution.  You have to have read the book to understand what it was though. 

          • That is not accidental.

        • herddog505

          That WOULD reduce their carbon footprint, wouldn’t it?  To zero pretty quickly, I’d bet.

      • retired.military

        Why not let them pick their own “traitor’s reward”  like um  crucifiction or throwing them in jail.  Same as they want to do to the nonbelievers.

        • jim_m

          I’m thinking of those global warming commercials where they blew up the people who wouldn’t knuckle under to their fascist program.  The left thinks it’s funny to blow people away for their ideology.  Not surprising when you see the tendency of leftist ideologies to exterminate their opposition in real life.

      • Evil Otto

        Such as what? What would be a fitting “traitor’s reward” for the American environmentalists?

        How about this?

        • jim_m

          Isn’t the golden rule that we should treat others as we would treat ourselves?  Perhaps we should oblige the left by doing exactly that for them (ie treat them as they propose to treat us).

  • Pingback: Lunatics have escaped the Asylum… | pindanpost()

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • Pingback: 404 Not Found()

  • Pingback: 404 Not Found()