Obama’s Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence

As Americans spend $41 million in foreign oil an hour and are left broke at the pump, what plan does Obama have to solve this problem?

Oil is destined to be a heated issue in this upcoming presidential election and Barack Obama’s opposition to the gas tax “holiday” has already been a hot topic. Obama has made it clear that national energy policy needs to be taken in a new direction.

“We send a billion dollars to foreign nations every single day and we are melting the polar ice caps in the bargain,” said Obama. “That has to change.”

Here are some of the key elements of Obama’s energy plan:

Fuel Economy Standards

Doubling fuel economy standards within the next 18 years is a priority to Obama. Research in engines and advanced lightweight materials will help meet this goal. He also wants to assist auto makers in increasing fuel economy standards through loan guarantees and tax credits for domestic auto manufacturers.

“We are going to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars because that is the only way that we can actually lower gas prices over the long-term and I know you need that,” said Obama.

Next Generation Biofuels

Obama’s goal is to have two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in use by 2013. He plans to use tax incentives, government contracts and cash prizes to help this industry mature and specifically wants to encourage farmer-owned refineries. He would like renewable fuel standards to increase, such that 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels are in the fuel supply by 2030.

A National Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a mechanism that Obama plans to use that requires fuel suppliers to decrease carbon emissions from fuels by 10% by 2020 and he specifically wants to encourage non-petroleum fuels to reach this target.

“The only way we are going to seriously reduce the price of gas is if we actually start investing in alternative fuels and we raise fuel standards on cars,” said Obama.

Renewable Energy

By 2025, Obama would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it. Investment in a national digital electric grid would allow greater amounts of renewable energy to be utilized and make plug-in hybrids more environmentally sound.

“For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time,” said Obama.

Original here

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

George Bush with General David Petraeus at Al-Asad Air Base in Anbar Province, Iraq, last year

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

Original here

Guarantee net neutrality

The information superhighway that is the internet has been an equal opportunity route. A local shop's web page isn't shunted into the slow lane while Mega Corporation's blows by in the express. Each is entitled to use the same path at the same speed.
Federal legislation is needed to ensure internet providers, primarily phone and cable companies, don't undermine that equality. There is a danger that internet providers will charge extra for faster transmission of websites or services, leaving those unwilling or unable to pay to lag behind. There also is a danger that providers might block sites or services because of content.
Internet providers say they would never do such things. They say that even if one company did, competition would ensure "net neutrality," as the wonkish call it.
These assurances are nowhere near enough of a firewall against net discrimination. Competition isn't robust enough in many places to guarantee protection. And providers already have tried to treat some net users differently.
Last year an Associated Press investigation confirmed that Comcast was hindering file sharing by some subscribers. Also last year Verizon blocked text messages sent by an abortion rights group until a public outcry forced the telecom to reverse position. And three years ago the Federal Communications Commission fined a rural telephone company for blocking its DSL customers from making phone calls over the internet.
Equal access is vital. It has been a key ingredient in the web's fostering of creativity and technological and economic growth.
Unfortunately, the FCC has failed to aggressively counter threats to network neutrality. A strong federal law is essential to make it clear to both internet providers and regulators that internet democracy cannot be restricted.
Bills now in Congress take two general approaches. One would require the FCC to strictly enforce neutrality. The other would allow government antitrust suits against providers that fail to treat all users equally. But combining the two strategies would provide by far the most effective protection.
Internet neutrality is one of those rare issues that has united unusually diverse groups, from the Gun Owners of America to the Christian Coalition. And for good reason. Congress should adopt a comprehensive net neutrality law this year.

Original here