Man Who Uses Massive Amounts Of Fossil Fuels Bans Drilling

Last time we checked, Mr. Obama and family had just taken a massive fossil fueled (and partially taxpayer funded) trip from D.C. to Hawaii for his annual (partially taxpayer funded) vacation. Just like all the rest of us are able to do. And while he’s enjoying the golf and 1%er accommodations, he did this

(Washington Post) President Obama moved to solidify his environmental legacy Tuesday by withdrawing hundreds of millions of acres of federally owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore oil and gas drilling.

Obama used a little-known law called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to protect large portions of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the Arctic and a string of canyons in the Atlantic stretching from Massachusetts to Virginia. In addition to a five-year moratorium already in place in the Atlantic, removing the canyons from drilling puts much of the eastern seaboard off limits to oil exploration even if companies develop plans to operate around them.

The announcement by the White House late in the afternoon was coordinated with similar steps being taken by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to shield large areas of that nation’s Arctic waters from drilling. Neither measure affects leases already held by oil and gas companies and drilling activity in state waters.

I guess Mr. Obama would prefer that we get more of our oil from nations like, say, Iran.

As Powerline notes, with the power to block also comes the power to unblock, but, even if there is not way, Congress can attempt to pass a law to overrule. As for needing a 60 vote threshold in the Senate, bah, let the shenanigans Democrats pulled come back to bite them. Too bad Congress can’t pass a law forcing the current administration to stop using fossil fuels altogether, leaving Obama stranded in Hawaii, with the choice to stay or pay for a trip on his own credit card.

The Wall Street Journal calls this largely symbolic, since there is not much call for new drilling in these waters at this time. It’s just another feel good look at me (I’m a total hypocrite on the use of fossil fuels) move by a guy with less than a month to go. And we should probably not expect him to go softly out of office. This is surely the first of a lot of rules and executive orders.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Man Who Uses Massive Amounts Of Fossil Fuels Bans Drilling”

  1. Hank_M says:

    It’s all about the legacy. Shame he doesn’t have one.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Early Christmas package from Chuck Schumer to loyal staffers.
    This is what loyalty to the Dems gets you…

    http://fxn.ws/2hoYmp9

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Their tears of disbelief nurture the garden of hatred that I have for these people…

    It’s a chuckle also!

  4. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    I’ve been periodically watching videos like this on YouTube since Nov. 9th, drowningpuppies. Every time I could use a little laugh I click “Trump reaction” and they never disappoint.

  5. o0Nighthawk0o says:

    What Obama does with the stroke of a pen can be undone with a stroke of a pen.

  6. Dana says:

    Thanks for that video, Mr Puppies! There’s just no freude like schadenfreude!

  7. Jeffery says:

    Teach typed:

    I guess Mr. Obama would prefer that we get more of our oil from nations like, say, Iran.

    Like most of us, he recognizes the need to deploy other sources for energy. He also surely recognizes that the new government will encourage, not discourage, the use of fossil fuels, and will certainly never assign the actual market cost to fossil fuel use.

  8. Jl says:

    Too funny-“never assign the actual market cost to fossil fuel.” That’s code for: we liberals due some fancy math and add in the supposed “cost” to the environment onto cost of the oil for a much larger scary total. Of course this number is basically pulled out of thin air, and they don’t add back in the overwhelming benefits of fossil fuels. So it comes to this-fossil fuels are so cheap that we have to artificially inflate their cost to make them appear as expensive as wind and solar.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Pollution is a great redistribution scheme. Corporations get to pollute, reap the profits, and taxpayers pay for the damages!

    The self-proclaimed Party of Responsibility draws the line at being responsible for damages caused by their donors or corporations.

    One approach is to ban the offending offal, prohibiting businesses from dumping waste into the common environment. Another, based on market principles, places a tax on the agent.

    America didn’t ban cigarettes, but they’ve been heavily taxed resulting in a reduction in smoking – and this is for an addictive drug.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Pollution is a great redistribution scheme. Corporations get to pollute, reap profits, and taxpayers pay for the damages! Profits accrue to the individual, damages to the masses. Sort of like Wall Street Too Big to Fail. Banks get the profits but if they make bad investments, the taxpayers bail them out!

    The self-proclaimed Party of Responsibility draws the line at being responsible for damages caused by their donors or corporations.

    One approach is to ban the offending offal, prohibiting businesses from dumping waste into the common environment. Another, based on market principles, places a tax on the agent.

    Certainly everyone agrees that pollution is a legitimate cost of doing business. Either you don’t pollute, or if you do, you pay damages.

    America didn’t ban cigarettes, but they’ve been heavily taxed resulting in a reduction in smoking – and this is for an addictive drug.

    But not to worry, the new Republican US government will take care of their donors at the expense of the working classes. Always have, always will. The Dems in DC are almost as bad, but not quite. On an ideological level, Repubs find all taxes to be counterproductive and they just Deny that pollution occurs.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    Certainly everyone agrees that pollution is a legitimate cost of doing business. Either you don’t pollute, or if you do, you pay damages.

    No, people don’t agree with that at all. Right off the bat you are on shaky ground.

    For example, how much does your business pollute and what have you done to stop it?

    (Make no mistake, “pollution” is different from “waste.” All businesses create waste as do all people. All businesses do not pollute, as all people do not pollute.)

    The interesting thing is that around here we are having a discussion on the Indian River Lagoon and it’s cleanup. It’s a mess. Muck impedes the growth of seagrass which impedes the growth of small lifeforms which impedes the growth of bigger lifeforms and sometimes results in red and brown algae blooms which kill fish.

    The funny thing is that the companies aren’t putting waste into the lagoon – people are. Whether it be leaky septic tanks, fertilizer runoff (which is a debatable issue now) it seems the ones harming the lagoon the most are the people……

    …and one other source: The government.

    Over the past few years the local and federal government have been pumping waste directly into the lagoon. That pumping is against the law, but no one is held accountable for it. No one has lost their job. No one has been arrested (even though is it a crime if a civilian does it.)

    The people here just voted a one cent sales tax to raise $300 million over 10 years to help with the $1 – $2 billion dollars it is expected that the cleanup will take. So far, the feds and the state aren’t pitching in a dime.

    It’s easy to blame businesses, but that sort of thought is lazy and contrary to facts.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5914 access attempts in the last 7 days.