Natural Security Blog: Post
CNAS Field Trip: Obama's Energy & Climate Speech
March 31, 2010 | Posted by Christine Parthemore - 4:22pm | 3 Comments
As any of you who follow me on Twitter likely know by now, I accompanied three esteemed colleagues to President Obama's big energy speech today. We were quite fortunate to be able to attend, and I must say I appreciate the national security backdrop to the location (Andrews Air Force Base), the stage (set in front of Air Force One and a "Green" Hornet) and within the speech itself. We here at the blog surely concur that energy is a security issue, to be sure.
I'll make a few quick notes about the content before I head out the door, but I'd be more interested in the thoughts of anyone who'd like to comment here - especially from our readers outside the Beltway.
What I liked the least: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's comment that "...today in America, families are still filling their cars with fuel from deserts half a world away." This is not really true. Most months, American families fill their cars with oil mostly from Canada, Mexico, and from domestic sources. Nigeria and Saudi Arabia follow after that, but it fluctuates by month. Venezuela, another top-10 supplier, is pretty close by. Not to mention that petroleum is sold on a global market. Don't get me wrong - I think we need to move past petroleum as such a major fuel source, but to be honest I don't find that where we get it from makes a whole lot of difference, at least on the security side.
What I liked the most: President Obama stating that "We need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now." I concur.
There was a lot I liked abo
ut the president's speech and about the energy plan he rolled out - it seemed pragmatic and implementable, two of the characteristics our founders here at CNAS wanted to strive for more in creating security policy. What I do hope is that the level of interagency representation shown at this speech (the audience included everyone from Secretary Chu to Secretary Mabus, and Carol Browner to Admiral Roughead) continues on these issues. DOD has special needs and interests at stake on energy that must be considered in any national strategy. The optics of today's speech should be a strong indication that this is already the case.
Photo Courtesy of Christine Parthemore/CNAS. CNASers John Nagl, Abe Denmark (Put away your iPhone, Abe!!) and Shannon O'Reilly.
Good catch on the Salazar
Good catch on the Salazar talking point. But what about the offshore drilling centerpiece, which is what everybody is talking about? It's conspicuously absent from your post. Liberals and greens are flummoxed by it. What's your take?
Hi KKloor, My take on
Hi KKloor, My take on offshore drilling is that it is a smart and necessary trade-off to make, but that it does not get us much in terms of energy security - in terms if dramatically increasing affordable energy supplies, reducing operational energy burdens for DOD, etc. - particularly because it doesn't guarantee that any drilling will happen any time soon (See this Forbes article that discusses this point: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/31/obama-oil-drilling-business-energy-offshore-oil.html). And to me, the buried headlines were actually Obama's goal to transition away from oil, and that the military services are making progress on achieving their alternative fuel testing. I agree with his goal; I also agree that ceasing to exclude these areas from (hypothetical/potential) drilling was also the best move. What do you think? Thanks, CPA smart and necessary
A smart and necessary trade-off for what? That's what everybody is scratching their head over today.
I posted my take this morning:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/01/the-offshore-drilling-decision/
Add your comment