Did anybody else find the President's remarks on climate change/energy policy contradictory?

[markpkessinger]

After making such a bold statement about doing something about climate change, he then turned around and talked about speeding up new oil and gas permits. It struck me when I heard him say it, then I kind of forgot about until reading this article on Alternet, which put into words what had struck me initially:

[font=5]Obama's Contradictory Energy Policy: Combat Climate Change and Speed Up Drilling[/font]

Obama’s call that we “must do more to combat climate change,” received a standing ovation. But what did he propose we do? His ideas are a mixed bag. He called for “market-based solutions” but didn’t elaborate on what that would mean. Certainly leveling the playing field for renewables by getting rid of mammoth subsidies for Big Oil would be a start. The president urged Congress to take action and said he would use executive actions to get the job done if Congress won’t. Of course the president doesn't have to wait for a Congress that has failed to take any meaningful action on climate change, writing for Grist today, David Roberts wrote about what actions the president could take right now.

Even though Obama gave some lip service to renewable energy, he also kept up his support for natural gas and said that he would cut red tape to speed up new oil and gas permits, an idea that seems to run counter to doing “more to combat climate change.” The president continues to cling to tired notion of "all of the above" energy policy, which won't cut it in the climate change age in which we've now embarked.

He did however say he wanted to create an Energy and Security Trust to “shift cars and trucks off oil for good.” We'll see how that works out. The president stopped short of mentioning the contentious issue of tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline.

Seems to me he's attempting to conflate two issues that may be working at cross purposes: real action on climate change, and the desire to keep energy prices low.

[EastKYLiberal]

1. We can't quit those other energy sources cold turkey is what I think he meant...

It will need to be a smooth transition while infrastructure is built for renewable sources of energy.

Cutting the red tape and expanding some oil/gas drilling seems to be like the last hurrah before we make the transition. Skyrocketing energy prices by ending all of this in an ideological fashion would hurt chances for economic recovery.

[newfie11]

2. Yes

Speeding up oil and gas drilling on public lands and allowing fracking on them is not the way to go.

When we have oil sitting in pipelines
(Cushing Okla) waiting to be refined or the tar sands oil that would be shipped out of country, why speed up.

Why not do what Germany did. I have never seen so many solar panels. Even 400 year old homes had them.

My German friends tell me that the government subsidized that. The consumer didn't.

I live on the corner of WY, CO, and NE. It is very windy here. We do have lots of turbines and more being built. This is ranch land and under the turbines the land is not polluting unlike the horrors of what is happening in ND.

To speed up what is already killing the environment is wrong.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. "To speed up what is already killing the environment is wrong."

My motto, to a "tee", indeed.

To be fair, I still need to see the address (meeting last night, missed it). But, we can't be unclear on the timetable to renewable energy, especially when one considers that it the pipeline oil and drilling that many say we should do is for our own energy needs. It damn well is not. It's for energy trade and profit for oil and gas companies.

The rest of us are swinging in the wind (if you'll pardon the expression).

I was hoping to hear/see him talk about the relationship of jobs to renewable energy for our own use, like Germany did.