Obama's real record on fossil fuels

Another in a long list of problems I have with the current administration is its handling of energy production. So I was happy to read a piece by The Wall Street Journal that critiqued Obama’s remarks on energy in the second debate with Romney.

Remember how the President boasted of his investment in fossil fuels, invoking oil drilling, the natural gas fracking boom, and even coal production? That was so contrary to his actual policies, which over the past four years have ignored traditional sources of energy. Instead, he subsidized dozens of companies with little commercial potential but that were often owned by his green allies. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency went on a regulatory binge like nothing in modern U.S. history against traditional carbon-based sources of energy, coal in particular. There’s the reality behind all his grand pronouncements in the debate.

The true story came out in Romney’s rebuttal and in statistics compiled by the U. S. Energy Information Agency, a government outfit. Romney pointed out that the Administration has not in practice promoted the production of U.S. energy resources on federal lands and waters, in fact the opposite. In the last four years, Obama cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half. As support for Romney's charges, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) compiles energy statistics and notes the following: Production on government land of oil is down 14% and production of gas is down 9%. This organization also reports that total fossil fuel production in public areas—oil, gas and coal—has plunged to a nine-year low, to 18.6 quadrillion BTUs from 21.2 quadrillion in 2003. So much for the rosy picture Obama would like to paint.

It is true that overall domestic energy production is up, thanks largely to the shale boom in states like Pennsylvania and North Dakota. But Obama's trying to take credit for something he had nothing to do with, given that this surge is taking place on private property and the EPA is searching for an excuse to supplant state regulation and slow down drilling.

The biggest joke is Obama's declaration in the debate that he backs more coal production. A little history here is helpful.  In 2008 Mr. Obama declared that he wanted electricity rates for so-called dirty fuels to "necessarily skyrocket" and "if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can—it's just that it will bankrupt them."

So after four years, what does our coal industry look like under Obama? For the first time, coal is in decline, with production falling 6.5% since 2008, according to the EIA. The major reason is a surge of EPA air and water rules.

The EIA expects 8.5% of the coal-fired fleet to retire by 2016, and 17% by 2020, and those are very conservative estimates. Coal has fallen to 32% of U.S. net electric generation, according to preliminary EIA data for 2012. This share stood at about 48% when Mr. Obama took office. Even some regulators within the Administration oppose the EPA's draconian measures, fearing blackouts and other reliability issues as plants are retired despite many remaining useful years. Amid mine closings and layoffs, the United Mine Workers of America declined to endorse Mr. Obama this year, though the union did in 2008.

And then there's the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, which Mr. Obama personally rejected amid a furious green lobbying campaign. His debate answer to that fact was to assert that "we've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once," whatever that means. Talk about an answer that wasn't an answer.

So, once again, please consider ending the Obama administration in November so we can go back to a sane energy policy. Sure, we need to work on new sources of energy, but it makes no sense to turn our back on current sources that are readily available.