German Reactions

Obama is on slippery slope over the consequences of the Oil Spill. The critics discuss whether he shows leadership. The Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: “Obama wants to lead the US out of its dependence on oil. Absolutely right. In fact it’s the very thing people have been waiting to hear from Obama for weeks.” His reaction is called “cautions” and his suggestions are named as “vague”. “He doesn’t dare push the Senate to settle on a climate-change bill. This president won’t lead America out of a crisis this way—and he certainly won’t usher in a new era.”

Die Tages Zeitung stresses the role of Obama by arguing that through political decision-making the public debate on environmental issues is reinforced. “President Barack Obama made it clear … that BP won’t be exempt from criminal investigation. He’s also maintained a moratorium on new oil exploration on the deep-ocean floor, and looks determined to end corruption in federal agencies”. Die Welt writes: “This is the right way to make America independent of problematic nations. Going forward, the mix will also have to include exploitation of America’s domestic energy resources, even if it means heavier regulation to avoid a new disaster.” The Berliner Zeitung argues that Obama tried to make a virtue of an emergency. “Politically though, it’s fraught with risk. His opponents have already charged Obama with using the Gulf catastrophe to advance his climate agenda in Congress. Republicans rely on the tendency of Americans to prefer cheap fuel and big cars with a certain level of power. Over 30 years ago another president called for smarter American energy politics in a televised speech from the Oval Office. He wanted to know, ` Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem? ´ That president’s name was Jimmy Carter.” – So is Obama in danger of turning into an idealistic president without naming concrete goals? Or will he succeed by reinforcing the political debate and achieve a true shift in energy dependence?