Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Luntz-like definitions from Obama White House?

January 27th, 2010 · 3 Comments

Seeing this makes me think of Frank Luntz and how he worked so hard to twist words into meaningless.

From the White House blog:

A vision for a clean energy economy “…to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, and more incentives.” We will build on the historic $80 billion investment made through the Recovery Act.  The President’s vision includes investments in important technologies to diversity our energy sources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, including:  the renewal of our nation’s nuclear energy industry after a 30-year hiatus, cutting edge biofuel and clean coal technologies, and additional offshore oil and gas drilling.  To fully transition to a clean energy economy and create millions of new American jobs, we must pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation to promote energy independence and address climate change.

Since when is “offshore oil and gas drilling” part of a “vision for a clean energy economy”?

Clean coal?

Biofuels?

From a correspondent,

Clean is drilling? Clean is coal? Clean is biofuels?

Was there some limitation on syllables such that “solar” nor “wind” nor “wave energy” nor “geothermal” could make it into “a vision for a clean energy economy”?

From CBD:

“The President is correct that we need energy innovation and clean energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised.

“The president failed tonight, as he failed over the past twelve months, to use his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. Scientists have determined that reducing carbon pollution to 350 parts per million (ppm) is necessary to preserve a livable planet. 350 ppm must be the bottom line for all climate and energy policies. The President already has the tools he needs under the Clean Air Act to begin the required pollution reductions. It is just common sense that new climate legislation must add new tools to get the job done faster, building upon, and not rolling back, our foundation of successful environmental laws like the Clean Air Act.

“Setting binding science-based limits on U.S. carbon pollution through the existing Clean Air Act is the best and quickest way to address the climate crisis and ensure that America does not fall behind in innovation and opportunity.”

Tags: Energy

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Clean Energy from the SOTU Bully Pulpit: What a difference a year makes … // Jan 28, 2010 at 6:19 am

    [...] Google Analytics _uacct = “UA-4876695-1″; urchinTracker(); ← Luntz-like definitions from Obama White House? [...]

  • 2 Michael Mariotte // Jan 28, 2010 at 8:11 am

    And since when is nuclear power a “clean” energy source? The National Academy of Sciences has determined there is no safe level of radiation exposure, and all reactors release radiation routinely.

    All reactors generate radioactive waste, and there is no effective program–anywhere in the world–to isolate this lethal material from the environment for its hazardous life.

    Candidate Obama spoke about his concerns about nuclear safety and against nuclear subsidies. See for example, this video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU

    Now President Obama is recycling George Bush talking points on energy….

  • 3 Tweets that mention Luntz-like definitions from Obama White House? -- Topsy.com // Jan 28, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by enviroknow, ClimaTweets. ClimaTweets said: [Get Energy Smart] Luntz-like definitions from Obama White House?: Seeing this makes me think of Frank Luntz and h… http://bit.ly/9NcWxP [...]

Leave a Comment