President Barack Obama rarely mentions the impact of his energy policy on the U.S. economy. However, few sectors in the country's economy have been impacted by globalization as dramatically as energy.
For decades the U.S. has sought what is often referred to erroneously as “clean energy” but should instead be called “alternative energy,” for materials must always be consumed in the production of any energy source and some waste naturally follows the production process.
Even solar power has an issue that is rarely discussed—what to do with all those old lithium batteries once new ones are purchased. With wind, the prospect of thousands of birds, especially raptors, being shredded is a major liability. Aside from those concerns, solar fields often require large expanses of land free and clear of trees and other vegetation. With energy, there is always a tradeoff.
President Barack Obama has concentrated taxpayer dollars in the solar industry and also in wind. There is a conflict of interest in his dedication to the solar energy sector. Even ABC News, perceived by many conservatives as left of center, disclosed deep corporate ties and campaign dollars benefiting the president in that sector.
Conservatives have a right to be concerned about Obama’s policy. Even as the U.S. pulls back on fossil fuels, other countries are positioning themselves in anticipation of possible disruptions because of conflicts in the Middle East. Politico recently pointed out that China is already “stockpiling petroleum” in case the supply of oil is disrupted. Preparing for the risk of imminent disruption is not something Obama has addressed in his campaign speeches.
China and other so-called “developing countries” in Asia have been a significant driver in oil consumption, with those countries surpassing the U.S. in 2010.
Although Obama and others on the Left declare fossil fuels responsible for phenomena like global warming, there are experts who disagree with that hypothesis. Regardless, research is emerging in interest areas like human engineering. One expert suggested to The Atlantic in a controversial interview that humans could be bio-engineered to be smaller, therefore leaving a smaller ecological footprint.
The expert also told The Atlantic, “[W]hat we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. If that's the case, given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children.”
The environment and energy usage began to ramp up as political issues during the administration of another Democrat, President Bill Clinton. In 1992 representatives from 172 countries gathered in Brazil for the UN Conference on Environment and Development. Records from that meeting demonstrate the seeds of initiatives like Agenda 21 and intrinsic hostility towards the U.S.:
“The Summit’s message — that nothing less than a transformation of our attitudes and behaviour would bring about the necessary changes — was transmitted by almost 10,000 on-site journalists and heard by millions around the world. The message reflected the complexity of the problems facing us: that poverty as well as excessive consumption by affluent populations place damaging stress on the environment.”
Those 10,000 on-site journalists were a significant weapon in spreading a message that ultimately would benefit countries like China and disenfranchise countries like the U.S.
Energy is a key component in any country’s productivity and wealth.
Ultimately the UN originated Agenda 21, derided as a conspiracy theory by many until the UN placed the public report on the organization’s website. The UN described Agenda 21 as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
Directives in Agenda 21 specify government control for land and other resources. The agenda is a global policy that Democrats in the U.S. Congress took to heart when they tried, but failed, to pass HR 2454, the Cap and Trade bill that would have continued to increase prices Americans pay for every commodity consumed.
In 2008 as U.S. troops risked life and limb in Iraq, three Democrats in the U.S. Senate then under their party’s control, Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) intervened in Iraq’s politics, effectively squelching oil contracts with western countries and enabling China to ink an oil contract instead. Media did not ask the presidential candidate why his party offered another country an economic advantage even as the U.S. economy was in crisis.
Obama’s policy on the Keystone XL Pipeline is similar. Some analysts have said the president’s ally, billionaire Warren Buffett, would benefit from killing the pipeline because Buffett’s railroad would then transport the oil.
Although transport by rail is potentially riskier than the pipeline, groups like the Sierra Club did not complain. Thousands of jobs were, however, killed along with the Keystone project.
Obama’s energy policy benefits the people in countries like China more than the U.S. citizens the president is sworn to protect and defend. That should be a question for public debate as the president heads into November when he will face a Republican candidate. Most of the GOP candidates have committed to unleashing the U.S. energy sector for the benefit of all Americans.
Obama’s pro-China policy suggests convergence within a globalist centered government-science-corporate complex has gradually usurped control of U.S. energy resources, manipulating the same in the interests of global politics and placing all Americans at a disadvantage as a result.
(Read Kay B. Day’s syndicated column at The US Report; follow Day on Twitter @TheUSReport.)