« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s Energy Sec. wants $7 to $9 Unleaded gas prices

The liberal media tried to bury this story as quick as Energy Sec. Chu suggested unleaded prices would solve our energy problems forcing people to buy alternative energy cars and sub compacts.  Well that dog don’t hunt, this is America, not Europe.  I think Obama ran for office in the wrong country because beyond food, wine, tourism and other Euro products the majority of us don’t envision Euro anything.  Especially $7 gas.  When unleaded hit $3 a gallon many people began to cut back on spending because they spent a fortune just to commute to work and travel daily.

Interviews with Chu help to explain why the Gulf is in slow motion while oil rigs corrode waiting on the multi-tasker in chief to grant permissions again.  Democrats want to punish American success with a forced move towards cars that aren’t deemed reliable as of yet.  While to early adopters and the wannabee seen types will buy electric cars now, they’ll soon find the costs are higher than just the cost of electricity.  Steven Chu thinks we can make this shift in 5 years while most Americans will wait and see.  Economies of Scale will reduce manufacturing costs as more people buy alternative energy cars but the fact remains, till such cars can travel 300 miles or more on a single charge and or companies produce larger vehicles, the majority will sit on the sidelines.  And of course the majority can’t afford to switch cars every year so expect 2 decades till we see a major decline in gas powered cars…………before then we’ll need more power plants but nuclear is out all thanks to enviro-fascism coming from the left.  Solar and wind will take time to develop and Chu wants us to pay more now.   Looks more like a get rich scheme wrapped around a specious plan to reward their own success with our money.   R&D takes time, throwing more money around won’t speed up inovation, especially when the money comes from the people via Obama policy.  And I thought Obama said “no new taxes” too?  Yes he did!

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/07/gas-prices-under-president-obama-in-pictures/

Fact: President Barack Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” At the time he made the statement, gas cost $7 – $8 a gallon in Europe.
Fact: Since taking office, President Obama’s entire energy agenda has made a gallon of gas more expensive:

All of these policies raise gas prices at the pump by either: 1) decreasing the availability of domestic energy supplies, or 2) increasing regulatory costs on gasoline production.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2008/12/obama-energy-pi.html

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told the Wall Street Journal in September.

Chu said he favors gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to nudge consumers into buying cars that are more fuel efficient and homes which are closer to work. Chu spoke with The Wall Street Journal in September but the newspaper did not publish the gas tax comments until last seek, shortly after the Nobel-prize winning physicist had been identified as Obama’s nominee for Energy secretary.

The president-elect acknowledges that gas prices have come down since the summer when they reached $4 per gallon. He worries, however, that the overall economic downturn makes American families ill-equipped to shoulder higher prices.

“I can imagine in the hearings Chu facing problems because he dares say, ‘higher prices,’” said Schipper. “But I think there is no solution that does not involve higher prices.”

Schipper, who shared a lab at Berkeley with Chu from 1972-74, estimates that the average cost of gasoline in Europe at present is somewhere between $7-9 per gallon.

Schipper thinks Obama’s concerns about not placing additional burdens on America’s families can be addressed by agreeing to rebate all — or close to all — of the money raised by higher fuel taxes.

“The answer is: raise the price of gasoline and give all the money back,” said Schipper.

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: Durable goods orders plunge. Thanks Obama!

  • steve010

    I love how these left-wing Euro-Socialists who work in the Obama Administration talk about over the next 15 years or 10 years or 20 years. How about 656 DAYS. Because after that we can send them the links to their state unemployment site.

    Also, these fools need to read the Constitution. The Executive Branch doesn’t raise taxes. All revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. Hey, Czars and Secretaries, get a life.

  • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

    Assign their nuke responsiblities to Defense and the Energy Information Agency to CIA. S***can the rest and we would never miss them.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • williamjameson

    chosen. Using a food source was dumb. Wall street and the gung ho no room for real debate liberals decided they knew what was best for us. Now they experiment with algae based ethanol production but its a long way from mass production needed to make a difference. Not cost effective either.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    For every 1.0 unit of energy required to grow corn and process it into ethanol, only 0.7 to 1.8 units of energy is yielded. In other words, with ethanol, we

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    nt

  • citizenkh

    all sorts of Coal Gasification research, then pilot plants, then market development units, back in the late 70′s early 80′s for Shell, Exxon, BP, etc…

    They also proved that the energy balance for ethanol was quite negative (a friend was on loan from NASA to study this).

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    Besides wasting topsoil, corn is also one of the most water-intensive crops.

    So where do you suppose many thousands of square miles of it are grown? On top of the Ogallala Aquifer! From west Texas to eastern Colorado to western Nebraska, where rainfall is sparse, the largest underground aquifer in America is being drained, to grow…. corn, one of the “thirstiest” crops there is.

    Insanity.

    Look, no matter how much we manage to thin down the federal government, we will always have to have agriculture policy. Why? Because nature is unpredictable. Drought, blight, hailstorms, locust plagues, etc., are always possibilities, and man has ZERO control over that. For basic national security, government has the responsibility to do what it can to prevent famine. That means that, to guard against bad years, in good years there will be a surplus.

    But, if that is left completely to the mercies of the moment-to-moment market, with no government intervention at all, a glut of anything will cause prices to plummet, which will put some farmers out of business, and cause others to plant less of that crop the following year. But suppose the next year brings drought or some other unpredictable disaster? If we don’t have surplus in storage, we’re screwed.

    I’m as against big government as anyone, but you must remember that government ORIGINATED when humans began to live in towns, storing up crop surpluses to insure against famine. Like national defense, basic protection against famine is one of the original, core functions of government. So we will have a national agriculture policy no matter what.

    Why not, then, have a policy that is SANE rather than idiotic?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    and only IF, it was used to fund the government, and we repealed the income tax amendment.

    Just think with no income tax, just consumption taxes. You would have more efficiency and you could indeed lower reliance on foreign energy sources.

    The adjustment to the economy might even be positive for growth, one the one hand, high energy prices would be anti growth, but on the other hand, NO INCOME TAXES.

    Of course nothing like that will likely happen.

  • citizenkh

    because there is not a long enough growing season here in the U.S. for cane to be competitive with Africa, Central/South America. Our cane crops goes to sugar which is much more profitable than ethanol or the mills, due price supports.

  • acat

    so even potato-fuel is possible. (think vodka) Convert the sugar to alcohol, just like any old-skool ‘still.

    The green-left have long hung their hopes on ethanol from cellulose .. a process that’s been “in development” since 1898… but is *still* not cost-effective.

    Mew

  • Seedyrom

    while the sycophant media lie for him. The poor and middle class suffer while the economy approaches the next decline. NO, Obama does not deserve another term.