Video: Inhofe on EPA battle, WH budget

posted at 9:30 am on February 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I sat down with Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) to discuss the latest developments in his battle to rein in the EPA and Lisa Jackson. Inhofe says that Barack Obama may have failed to succeed in getting cap-and-trade passed, but Inhofe says that Obama has been attempting to get the same result through EPA regulatory expansion. The Senator has a remarkable depth of expertise in the energy sector, which he puts to good use in this conversation. If we were allowed to get to our own resources, we would have enough oil and natural gas to supply American power for the next century, Inhofe says.

Of course, with the White House releasing its budget proposal, we also spoke about the surprisingly weak effort from Obama to contain spending. Inhofe predicts that the Senate Democrats will split from the President on this budget, especially those who are running in red states in 2012 — a number Inhofe puts at 11. “There are trillions in increases,” Inhofe says, “but [defense cuts] are the only cuts I can find in this,” and says that Obama’s foreign policy and defense policy seems to rest on the notion that nations will hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

When we get back to the EPA, I mention the fight Texas and Governor Rick Perry have on their hands, to which Inhofe says, “He’s looking better and better in the president’s race.” When I say that Perry has issued a string of denials, Inhofe responds, “Well, we can all be cute about that.” Inhofe reminded me that the EPA killed eleven coal-fired power plants in Texas a year ago, and also promised that his home state of Oklahoma will shortly get into the fight as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“No! Stop saying that! He’s just trying to help!” -Michael Medved.

Akzed on February 15, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Someday, someone other than Rush will start hitting the media with this simple fact: Obama’s doing this on purpose. Ruin our defense, ruin our economy.

search4truth on February 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM

We’re counting on you, Senator.

petefrt on February 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Yes, it all boils down to obama doesn’t it. His way or no way. We must oust this chap as soon as possible before he manages to chip away at more of our freedoms and self sufficiency.

jeanie on February 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM

We have enough shale oil in Wyoming and Colorado to supply the US oil at present consumption levels for hundreds of years. And, contrary to peak oil shammers, that oil is recoverable at less than $40 per barrel. Getting this oil is banned by presidential decree. Time to wake up people. Get your senators and reps on board with realistic energy policy. If the Pres gets his way, oil will be $5/gallon and electricity will be 30 cents/KWh.

LakeLevel on February 15, 2011 at 10:01 AM

If the Pres gets his way, oil will be $5/gallon and electricity will be 30 cents/KWh.

Yes, but we’ll have lovely clean air and oceans won’t we. No food, housing or jobs of course, but so what–who needs these.

jeanie on February 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM

LakeLevel on February 15, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Peak oil is a myth.

darwin-t on February 15, 2011 at 10:09 AM

There’s the Gore effect, where the weather is opposite of what you say it will be…

And now ladies and gentlemen, the Inhofe effect. I think I speak for most Oklahomans when I plead to Inhofe to ease off the fraud talk, at least until summer. ;-)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/10/coldest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-oklahoma-31f-today/

The day after the Inhofe fraud declaration.

Timing. Inhofe haz it.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM

LakeLevel on February 15, 2011 at 10:01 AM

That “massive” deposit of “cheap” shale oil is a myth.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM

What’s This?:
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

OkieDoc on February 15, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Not even a year’s consumption. 20 million barrels per day we use. You do the rest of the math.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:14 AM

That “massive” deposit of “cheap” shale oil is a myth.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM

The massive deposits of actual oil that the government refuses to allow or has made it virtually impossible to pump out of the ground isn’t a myth.

darwin-t on February 15, 2011 at 10:14 AM

In 2008, Chu told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At that time, gas in Europe was going for about $8.00 a gallon.

To quote Maya Angelou:

“If someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Fallon on February 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM

It’s a myth? Well is all of it? Do we or do we not have enough oil, natural gas and coal to supply our own needs if we do it carefully with regards to the environment? Never seem to be able to get a straight answer on this from the government or from any other source.

jeanie on February 15, 2011 at 10:17 AM

That “massive” deposit of “cheap” shale oil is a myth.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM
The massive deposits of actual oil that the government refuses to allow or has made it virtually impossible to pump out of the ground isn’t a myth.

It’s the “cheap” part that’s the myth – it is massive. I understand Shell has made some progess on better methods of extraction, which no doubt will be banned some way or another.

cktheman on February 15, 2011 at 10:17 AM

And the size, as I pointed out. Less than a year’s worth. I’m not saying not go after it. I’m just saying this whole myth built up aroung Bakken being the end all to our problems is just that. 99% myth.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:23 AM

It seems that bho and team are doing a bang up job helping O&G companies go bankrupt with his regulations.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2011-02-12-seahawk-drilling_N.htm
L

letget on February 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Not even a year’s consumption. 20 million barrels per day we use. You do the rest of the math.

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Oh, well what the hell … let’s just give up then. If we don’t have enough oil from one source to last a year let’s just quit.

darwin on February 15, 2011 at 10:27 AM

the EPA killed eleven coal-fired power plants in Texas a year ago

And this year during the ice storms in Dallas, the electric company had to run rolling blackouts to keep up with demand.

Kafir on February 15, 2011 at 10:28 AM

the EPA killed eleven coal-fired power plants in Texas a year ago
And this year during the ice storms in Dallas, the electric company had to run rolling blackouts to keep up with demand.

Honestly, the answer to electric generation is simple: nuclear power. Good like with that with the bozos currently in charge.

cktheman on February 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Never one to miss the overall point, eh MNH?
This was only 1 example of many that could be given to reduce our foreign dependance if the Feds got the hell outta the way.
So, say the Bakken only supplies 10% of that 20 Million (your figure),- what’s that? 6 years of support.
Then do the math on every other field from Alaska to the Gulf and whadda ya know?

Might give us time to be building nuke plants along with gas plants and coal plants. PLUS refineries.

Smells like jobs to me.

OkieDoc on February 15, 2011 at 10:35 AM

We were talking about the idea, last night, of cutting all these bloated agencies. That’s alot of unemployed governemt workers(I can dream) so putting them to work on those jobs might be a good idea……….of course they would have to actually work.

ORconservative on February 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Much more than 10 years ago President Clinton refused to allow new drilling because it would, in his contrived estimation, have taken 10 years for that to result in new production.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 15, 2011 at 11:20 AM

OK, I’ll play. Because a chain e-mail says so, it must be true…

Yes. Hundreds of years worth of oil that can be extracted for just pennies per barrel. Unicorns eating rainbows, crapping skittles. Chain e-mails never lie, right?

There, better?

MNHawk on February 15, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Great interview Ed! Inhofe gets it. Watching the President’s presser today he reminds me of what stubborn liberal ideologue he is, only his rhetoric is more centrist.

Speakup on February 15, 2011 at 11:52 AM

We have enough shale oil in Wyoming and Colorado to supply the US oil at present consumption levels for hundreds of years. And, contrary to peak oil shammers, that oil is recoverable at less than $40 per barrel

You don’t seem to understand the free market system. The price of oil that’s drilled in Colorado or Serbia or Brazil is valued at the current global, market rate. So unless you want to nationalize oil drilling in some cases, those resources won’t lower the cost of oil for anyone. Given the massive growth of China and India, you need a couple more Saudi Arabias to keep up with the demand curve.

bayam on February 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM