This morning comes news that Obama has permitted Shell to drill for oil in the Arctic.
The New York Times piece along with every other news article I found on the story was strangely short of analysis--what are his political calculations for doing this?
He has already made enemies with the oil and gas industries on his climate change positions. Does he really think this will change their view of his administration? And the Republicans are going to see this as too little, too late no matter what.
As Pakalolo noted on Daily Kos:
What is odd is that Obama just approved a large section of the Chukchi for protection.
Here are some options for Obama's political calculation on this. Please feel to weigh in with your own theory.
Most of the MSM sees this as no big deal, consistent with Obama's policy of okaying drilling but enacting other environmental regulations. This makes no sense as a coherent environmental policy as Mother Jones points out:
Moreover, today's decision underscored what many describe as an inconsistency in President Barack Obama's climate change policy: Despite his aggressive rhetoric on the dangers of global warming, and a suite of policies to curb the nation's carbon footprint, Obama has also pushed to expand offshore oil and gas drilling. Earlier this year, he announced a plan to limit drilling permits in some parts of the Arctic while simultaneously opening a vast new swath of the Atlantic ocean to drilling.
The
Washington Post doesn't see this as a big deal. The permits were okayed in 2008 and even though Shell has botched efforts to start drilling a number of times now, the Obama administration remains committed to honoring the leases:
the tentative approval was widely expected. Shell was awarded federal leases for oil exploration in 2008, and the company has spent an estimated $6 billion in preparations for drilling. The Obama administration has banned drilling in some areas of coastal Alaska while signaling that it intends to honor oil- and gas-lease decisions, assuming the necessary permits are obtained.
I think it may be this calculation--at the end of the day, energy independence is more important than preventing climate change.
As the Times reports today, our relationship with Saudi Arabia has dramatically shifted because we are no longer dependent on them for oil.
The thinking may be that with so much of the Middle East in turmoil, America's long-term interests lie in freeing us from entanglement in this region, even if that means that climate warming gets worse.
And there's some wisdom, though probably also some short-sightedness in this. If we want a deal with Iran, it's much better not to be beholden to Saudi Arabia. Our latitude in the Middle East to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians would be greater if we no longer has as much financial stake in the outcome.
And you can be sure we won't be invading Iraq any time soon if we no longer need Middle Eastern oil.