All of the above?

posted at 10:01 am on May 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As we head into the general election, Barack Obama will have to address rising energy costs, at the pump and at the outlet.  His campaign has already begun making the case that Obama has an “all of the above” energy policy, remaining open to all sources of energy in order to fuel the American economy.  Team Obama even has a page on their website titled “All of the Above”:

 

Let’s take a closer look at that graphic, though.  Notice anything missing from this “all of the above” representation?

Let me give you a hint.  It’s dark, hard, comes out of the ground, and creates jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans.  That’s right — coal.  But hey, that’s no big deal, right?  We don’t rely much on coal in the US. Why, it only accounts for, er … 46% of all electricity produced in the US:

Coal provides 46 percent of U.S. electric power generation, providing power for more than 60 million homes and 3.4 million businesses. The U.S. uses 979.6 million short tons of coal to generate 1,850.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.

Direct and indirect employment generated by U.S. coal mining accounts for 555,270 jobs, for a combined payroll of $36.3 billion.

In fact, that Team Obama graphic is terribly misleading.  According to EIA statistics for 2010, 88.3% of all electrical production came from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.  Wind only accounted for 2.3%, while solar power didn’t even account for enough for one decimal place, amounting to just 0.0294% of all electricity produced in the US for the year.  Biofuels added 1.4%.

What this graphic says is that Obama sees no role for coal in America’s energy future.  What will replace it, and when?  Obama and his administration have already been conducting a war on coal for the last three years.  If they drive coal out of business, there isn’t anything ready to replace it except perhaps natural gas — which the Obama administration has been blocking with new rules and restrictions on fracking.  That means energy prices will necessarily skyrocket, with shortages, brownouts, and rationing the rule rather than the exception across the US.  And let’s not forget the half-million people employed by the coal industry who will find themselves out of work, too.

The Obama idea of “all of the above” comes up significantly short of all.  It’s why his energy policy doesn’t add up.


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

I noticed that right away, hilarious.

cozmo on May 9, 2012 at 10:03 AM

After he loses in November, a lump of coal for his stocking in December.

itsnotaboutme on May 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

I don’t see mythical creature emissions either, the one fuel that can magically solve all of our energy concerns.

Bishop on May 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

When you are losing WV, why would you want the burnable diamonds on your website?

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Excellent campaign ammo for Mittens, if he has the balls to use it.

Extrafishy on May 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM

It’s why his energy policy doesn’t add up.

Easy to explain. They forgot to put the magic rainbow-colored unicorns in the graphic. Their renewable, carbon-free farts will power us into the next century.

GarandFan on May 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM

“All of the Above, None of What Works”

That’s the whole slogan from Team Obama

NOMOBO on May 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Which is why a federal inmate, in Texas, who didn’t campaign at all, got 40% of the Democratic vote in WV. The Whine does want to bankrupt the coal industry.

rbj on May 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

burnable diamonds?

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I tried that descriptor once, once.

cozmo on May 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

In other news today, the United Mine Workers Union states its support for President Obama as a man who is looking out for the worker.

BobMbx on May 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Obama and his administration have already been conducting a war on coal for the last three years.

Just like he said he’d do in 2008. Shut down the coal industry, which also means shutting down much of America’s economy.

How do you like him now, 52%ers — especially those of you in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania?

Want four more years of this insanity? Really?

AZCoyote on May 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

“Yes, I am against all of the above!” -Obama

search4truth on May 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

My collie says:

Judging by all the people I saw in the photos at Obama’s campaign re-election headquarters, perhaps Obama just thinks that coal is simply the wrong color.

CyberCipher on May 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

What this graphic says is that Obama sees no role for coal in America’s energy future.

This right here should tip the balance in Ohio to Romney. Eastern Ohio is coal country and also tends to vote Democratic (labor union country, as well). With Obama trying to kill coal off, you would think that these folks would vote their livelihood come November. Again, I think this should tip the balance. Whether it will or not is another story.

Bitter Clinger on May 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Coal is black.

Being anti-Coal is racist.

coldwarrior on May 9, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The real question is who will the United Mine Workers union endorse this time? If they endorse Obama, their members should revolt or if they do vote for Obama, have their heads examined.

gsherin on May 9, 2012 at 10:10 AM

He is on the record as being PRO dinosaur farts, though.

search4truth on May 9, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I tried that descriptor once, once.

cozmo on May 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM

oops.

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM

The pie chart is also missing hydro-electric power as an option — not surprising, since the environmentalists who support Obama would pretty much like to see every western hydro-electric dam taken down (well, other than Rachel Maddow and her man-crush on the Hoover Dam…)

jon1979 on May 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM

oops.

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Epic-oops

She didn’t see the work I put into it, or the humor.

cozmo on May 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Ed, notice something else missing?

Geothermal!

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Also missing: Algae

Pqlyur1 on May 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM

After he loses in November, a lump of coal for his stocking in December.

itsnotaboutme on May 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

While I do understand the significance of coal-a stocking full of angry, baby black Widows would be a lot more entertaining.
What?

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

When liberals say “all of the above,” they really mean “all of the unreliable energy sources, plus lip service to some popular fossil fuels.”

When conservatives say “all of the above,” they really mean “keep working with what works now while trying to make renewable resources more reliable.”

Red Cloud on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Also missing: Algae

Pqlyur1 on May 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Isn’t that covered by biofuels?

Bitter Clinger on May 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That’s what EPA regulators are working on as we speak.

Bitter Clinger on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

He did promise to end coal plants.

SouthernGent on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Biofuels added 1.4%.

Not really. More energy is consumed in making biofuels than the biofuels contain. That’s like adding batteries to the list of our power sources.

If they drive coal out of business, there isn’t anything ready to replace it except perhaps natural gas — which the Obama administration has been blocking with new rules and restrictions on fracking.

This is a sure-fire way to create shortages and skyrocketing prices for natural gas. It’s been done before, the government mandates more use of gas, but provides no incentive to drill for more of it, and the price “necessarily skyrockets.”

iurockhead on May 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Also missing: Algae

Pqlyur1 on May 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Isn’t that covered by biofuels?

Bitter Clinger on May 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM

What Bitter said.

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Also missing: Algae

Pqlyur1 on May 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM

…Yes!…where the heck is the pond scum!
The scum should remember that!

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 10:23 AM

This is a sure-fire way to create shortages and skyrocketing prices for natural gas. It’s been done before, the government mandates more use of gas, but provides no incentive to drill for more of it, and the price “necessarily skyrockets.”

iurockhead on May 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM

This. Only other problem is that nasty little executive order that he “signed” about a month ago. Don’t you remember reading about it? It talks about the issues of regulations.

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:23 AM

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That’s what EPA regulators are working on as we speak.

Bitter Clinger on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

In other words, just exactly what he is doing.

IrishEyes on May 9, 2012 at 10:26 AM

He did promise to end coal plants.

SouthernGent on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

And we should look forward to electricity rates necessarily skyrocketing.

People are alarmed by how he expanded food stamps. Just wait until he expands electricity assistance in a second term. Another form of wealth redistribution.

BuckeyeSam on May 9, 2012 at 10:26 AM

When you are losing WV, why would you want the burnable diamonds on your website?

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Well it’s a good thing that Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio – all Top 10 coal producers – aren’t battleground states or else he’d have to worry about alienating them too!

Trafalgar on May 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM

He did promise to end coal plants.

SouthernGent on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Now that’s not what he said. He said that he’d make it so expensive that anybody trying to build one would go bankrupt. There’s a big difference you just have to put your liberal glasses on to see it. Do I need a sarc tag after that?

Oldnuke on May 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Really? You’re analyzing Obama’s cartoons now?

Newsflash: anybody dumb enough to pay attention to this crap in the first place isn’t going to be willing or able to read what you’re writing about it.

logis on May 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM

This would actually qualify as an OOTD

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Oops. AOTD. More coffee, please

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Well it’s a good thing that Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio – all Top 10 coal producers – aren’t battleground states or else he’d have to worry about alienating them too!

Trafalgar on May 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Kentucky too. Illinois is the number two coal producing state. Think they’ll go for The Won this time around?

Oldnuke on May 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The real question is who will the United Mine Workers union endorse this time? If they endorse Obama, their members should revolt or if they do vote for Obama, have their heads examined.

gsherin on May 9, 2012 at 10:10 AM

It has been a long time since a private sector union actually represented the best interests of their constituents.

dirtseller on May 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Well it’s a good thing that Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio – all Top 10 coal producers – aren’t battleground states or else he’d have to worry about alienating them too!

Trafalgar on May 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Wait, you sure he hasn’t alienated them?

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Obama/Biden website:

“President Obama has a real strategy to take control of our energy future and finally reduce our dependence on foreign oil”

He must mean Canadian foreign oil. Can’t let any of that Canadian oil into Nebraska, can we?

So he shuts down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, sends $2 billion of taxpayer money to drill in Brazil, cuts drilling on Federal lands, so we have to import oil from Hurricane Hugo Chavez or His Royal Bowdowness from Saudi Arabia. Some strategy…

Obama’s war on Old King Coal could cost him dearly…they use lots of coal in OH and PA, and both sides need those electoral votes. Which is why Romney needs to come up with an energy plan for his campaign, or maybe borrow the Perry/Palin plan.

Steve Z on May 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Excellent campaign ammo for Mittens, if he has the balls to use it.

Extrafishy on May 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That is your problem when you nominate a RINO. As weak as Obama, it shouldn’t be this hard to drag Mitt across the finish line.

Alabama Infidel on May 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM

He isn’t in favor of several of the items appearing on the graphic either.

dogsoldier on May 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

State
Tons
(billions) Percent
of U.S.
Montana 120 25.4
Illinois 78 16.5
Wyoming 68 14.4
West Virginia 37 8.0
Kentucky 30 6.3
Pennsylvania 29 6.1
Ohio 19 4.0
Colorado 17 3.6
Texas 13 2.7
Indiana 10 2.1
Other States 51 10.9

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Here in Oregon the Donks are pulling out all the stops to prevent coal exports to China down the Columbia river. I find it ludicrous that people can dig up large masses of earth in Wyoming, cart it over half a continent and over the largest ocean in the world to China 7,000 miles away and still make a profit. I find it even more ludicrous that Americans would use litigation and regulation to prevent those exports.

Browncoatone on May 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Out: Smart Power

In: Fart Power

faraway on May 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Well, at least the republicans are holding his feet to the fire and Romney is pounding home the fact that Obama is systematically crippling the coal industry with regulations tailored to shut it down.

Oh wait.

fogw on May 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I find it even more ludicrous that Americans would use litigation and regulation to prevent those exports.

Browncoatone on May 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Well silly, the prevailing winds bring the pollution back here.

But we can always force the Chinese to install scrubbers on their coal powered industry. Right?

cozmo on May 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Also missing: wood, straw and dried cowpies.

Hey, it was good enough for the pioneers and the native tribes…

Bruno Strozek on May 9, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Wyoming 68 14.4
West Virginia 37 8.0

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

My collie says:

Then, on the other hand, maybe Obarky just doesn’t like doing business with coal producing states like West Virginia and Wyoming. You know. States with large numbers of people that would rather vote for a convicted felon. States that are home to people like Dick Cheney. States that start with….”W”.

Bush’s fault!

CyberCipher on May 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Trafalgar,

Damn, you, you beat me to it. I expect versions of that graphic, with “Obama hates Coal, and wants you to lose your job”, to show up in every single coal mining town in those states.

Greg Q on May 9, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I certainly hope this ruse only has an impact on the kool-aid drinking left. I really want to believe the independents are smart enough to see through this.

sdbatboy on May 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM

address rising energy costs, at the pump and at the outlet.

You might want to change that. Oil has been dropping now that our economy is going backwards again. Wholesale price of gas back under $3.

Amazing how those latest job numbers were so manipulated looking, they put the markets into free fall.

MNHawk on May 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Wholesale price of gas back under $3.
MNHawk on May 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM

where?

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Useful chart of where our energy comes from and how it’s used. Note the amount of waste heat (“rejected energy”) as a fraction of each source.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png

Prufrock on May 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

where?

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM

In the market, where gasoline is traded.

$2.9776 per gallon. Add to that local and state taxes, freight, and local dealer markup. WTI crude at $95.97, down another 1% yesterday.

NO ONE outside of an Ivy League classroom full of Poli Sci retards was fooled by that latest jobs report.

MNHawk on May 9, 2012 at 11:08 AM

But how will this new policy affect Julia?

The world wonders…

Khun Joe on May 9, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Frack dis administration!

BigAlSouth on May 9, 2012 at 11:10 AM

MNHawk on May 9, 2012 at 11:08 AM

thanks.

Wish it would drop the price of fuel. Still paying a nice 4.20 or so.

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

This chart further exposes Obama as a complete imbecile and an ideologue.

Jaibones on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I marched in the huge Tea Party rally on D.C. I will never forget the faces of the coal miners from Pennsylvania that we met there. They were the most stern, serious folks I have ever met. They have no love for Obama.

Kristamatic on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Groan!

I’ve been posting the following since before the 2008 elections. When are the Republicans going to wake up?

Twenty-six states produce coal. The major coal-producing states are (in descending order as of 2000, with annual production in thousands of short tons):

Wyoming (338,900).
West Virginia (158,257)
Kentucky (130,688)
Pennsylvania (74,619)
Texas (49,498)
Montana (38,352)
Illinois (33,444)
Virginia (32,834)
North Dakota (31,270)
Colorado (29,137)
Indiana (27,965)
New Mexico (27,323)
Utah (26,656)
Ohio (22,269)
Alabama (19,324)
Arizona (13,111)
Total United States: 1,437,174

Anybody see any “swing” states on the list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States

Wake up Republicans! Reach out to the coal miners!!!!

patch on May 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Wish it would drop the price of fuel. Still paying a nice 4.20 or so.

upinak on May 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Give it time. Locally (Twin Cities), SuperAmerica just tried to get the coordinated gouge mark back to $3.799, but that held all of a couple of hours as other stations started cheating immediately.

Those coordinated gouges really do hold when prices are steady or increasing.

MNHawk on May 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM

As Uppie notes, the state of Ill is the second largest coal producing state in the US. Think we will vote
against this retard?

Jaibones on May 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Useful chart of where our energy comes from and how it’s used. Note the amount of waste heat (“rejected energy”) as a fraction of each source.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png

Prufrock on May 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Thank you. A very interesting and well done chart. I am interested in seeing how they calculate the “rejected energy”–whether it’s the difference between a theoretical output and what we get, or whether it involves some sort of calculation of the sort for incandescent light bulbs (produces x amount of unwanted heat for y amount of wanted light).

Kevin K. on May 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM

If he wanted to destroy the country by choking off the energy supply, by throttling it around the neck … he’d make it impossible to build any more coal-fired plants. He’d make it so expensive, the coal plant owners would go bankrupt. If he wanted to destroy the country. Not saying that’s what he wants to do. Just saying … if he wanted to do that, then, that’s how he’d go about it.

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That’s what EPA regulators are working on as we speak.

Bitter Clinger on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM

In other words, just exactly what he is doing.

IrishEyes on May 9, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Sounds an awful lot like this …

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/22/video-if-i-wanted-america-to-fail/

Everyone in America, and especially in the coal states, needs to see this.

OneFreeMan on May 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM

There is another source of energy that has been left out, hydro-electric. One would think that it would be included since it is a renewable source of energy. Perhaps it was omitted because of all the pleasure craft that are used on the resulting lakes; they burn too much fuel and pollute the air. Ok, let’s get real, liberals can’t stand the idea that people can fun without their direct supervision.

Action Jackson2 on May 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

http://imaksim.com/political-satire-humor/obama-sky-rocket-gasoline/

Sky Rocket Gasoline: All Of The Above, None From Below!

Stu Gotts on May 9, 2012 at 2:07 PM

This why Obama doesn’t have any blacks working for him in Chicago or why he has no women working for him in the White House… his “All Of The Above” chart just doesn’t include them in the first place.

2Tru2Tru on May 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

We just fail to understand what he means by “All of the above.” Based on his actions, he means he’s only in favor of energy producing sources that are “above” the ground. He is NOT in favor of any energy sources that are found “below” the ground.

Cecil on May 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Obama’s hatred for coal likely explains why he lost 42 percent of the West Virginia primary vote to a man in federal prison.

Colony14 on May 9, 2012 at 5:28 PM