President Obama is traveling the country this week in an attempt to save face against out of control gas prices. The president knows that in the political arena, the American voter tends to think with his/her gas tank in the voting booth. With his poll numbers dropping and the price of gas at or above $4 a gallon, Obama will cross the country preaching his diligence to help the American public deal with high gas prices. However, like an unemployment rate stuck in the high eights could be the new normal, is Obama preparing us for gas prices stuck in the $4+ range?
One of the goals of the environmentalist movement has been to artificially raise the price of gas. Higher gas prices, not unlike higher cigarette prices, would hopefully start to change the behavior of the American people. It discourages the purchase of evil SUV’s and encourages people’s belief in alternative energy. While this could produce a slow down in the American economy, that is an acceptable loss for the benefit of the environment. In fact, Barrack Obama shares this feeling and during his campaign for president in 2008 he said that a gradual increase in gas prices would be good. Steven Chu, Obama's Energy Secretary, while walking back his position under political scrutiny, in 2008 also stated a desire to increase gas prices to levels in Europe. Although there are a few fringe groups that truly believe they can save the planet by raising gas prices, for the rest, gas prices are just a means to a greater end. That greater end is a dependency by the American public on government subsidized alternative energy.
The progressive/socialist/liberal (whatever term you prefer) system controls its people by choosing the winners and losers within society. The fuel that powers a country is a great opportunity to make these choices. In the US today we have a well-established capitalistic fossil fuel industry that can successfully exist without direct government involvement. To the progressive this is a problem. The only way to grab hold of the industry would be to nationalize it as we have seen down in places like Venezuela. However, an action of that nature would not be tolerated with in the US. The uproar surrounding the purchase GM proved as such. Since the American people refuse to give control of the fossil fuels to the progressive leaders, they have initiated two policies in order to encourage the American people to see things the progressive way.
First, they restricted the ability of the free market system to work within fossil fuel energy sector. This restriction takes place at both ends of the production. The government places heavy restrictions and permitting fees on the establishment of new fossil fuel recovery locations. While President Obama praises his time as president for being pro-drilling and fossil fuel recovery; he has actually done nothing to help this process. All the new fossil fuels recovered under his tenure occurred on private lands, his administration has not allowed drilling on the public lands he opened to fossil fuel exploration. After fossil fuels have been recovered, they are taxed heavily either by corporate taxes or high usages taxes. In 2010 Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips paid over a 40% tax rate, when the corporate tax rate for the US is only 35%. In Wisconsin, we also pay another 51.3 cents per gallon of gas (18.4 Federal Tax and 32.9 in State Tax). All of this interferes with the free market system by punishing this industry and product disproportionally to others.
Second, is the heavy subsidization of renewable energy over fossil fuels. As reported by the CBO, in 2011 the US overwhelming subsidized renewable energy over that of all fossil fuels. What is not detailed in the CBO findings is the amount of energy produced in comparison to the subsidy received. Although many of the subsidies stem from the stimulus package, the use of the tax system to choose an industry as a winner is definitely tilted toward renewable energy. More importantly is that the current crop of renewable fuels holds no promise to reduce our need for oil. As we have seen with the multiple bankruptcies of renewable energy companies that received stimulus; the American people are not on board with renewable energy sources yet. However, billions of our tax dollars go into propping up a losing industry.
As you can see, the true power of alternative energies is not within the ability to replace fossil fuels, but the ability of the progressives to control the populous through the energy they are forced to consume. While the above examples seem self-explanatory in their desire to choose winners and losers in the energy industry; another proof that progressives use alternative energy for control rather then environmental safety is in their actions.
Al Gore, one of the nation’s biggest global warming preachers, has gone out of his way to help create policy that eliminates the fossil fuel industry. However, Al Gore for all his concern about the environment, used 20x the household power as the average American in 2007. When confronted he said that his family would take steps to correct this, accept in the following year his energy usage went up. His actions prove that he is not out to save the environment, but to make the rest of the nation subservient to the desires of the progressive movement.
Obama has said that in order to transition into an economy that uses alternative energy sources, we need an informed citizenry that will force their leaders to take appropriate governmental steps to eliminate fossil fuels. However, his idea of an informed citizenry is one that is burdened with high energy costs brought down on them by the government.
Obama understands that in order to win re-election, he must pay lip service to the idea of lowering gas prices. He knows that he must make it look like he wants more oil by approving a section of the Keystone Pipeline that never required his okay to begin with. While the politician side of his personality promotes these ideas, the progressive side has yet to put forth any policy that actually helps either lower gas prices or get more oil from Canada into the US. In truth, he doesn’t want success within the fossil fuel industry. I predict stunts will be pulled by the current administration in an attempt to lower gas prices while doing nothing to increase our recovery of fossil fuels; this includes the release of petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. If anything is done; it will be short lived, have no benefit on fossil fuels production and be accomplished in a way to ensure the power over energy stays in hands of the government.
Of course the thinking shouldn't stop there and in reality, it doesn't. How can we 'get an edge on the rest of the world when they are way ahead of us in nuclear energy? They are in a much better position than we are in trying to develop the energy source for the future.
I still prefer living without a vehicle myself, though of course I'm still told every day that that is simply impossible. Maybe if we stopped using many times more gas than we really need out of lazyness and vanity then the drop in demand would lower the price a little?
I think I am starting to understand why the XO Pipeline was killed. If noone has a job, you have no objection to Socialism.
Obama made a horrible decision in funding the production of Solyndra(and let's be frank too there was an incredible amt of fraud there). Fund the basic research and perhaps even fund production technologies. But don't provide loan guarantees when you can't even be sure the company is viable. There is some green technology(s) our there that will be our future power. No one can predict what those technologies will be. And please don't waste my tax $$$s on those gambles.
I drive a 2006 Toyota Sienna and a 1994 Toyota Camry. I can guarantee you that I get better per passenger gas mileage then you do. Limiting the scope of government by repealing regulations is not as you say, "solving all your problems". You are attempting to use the words of the right against us; however, it make no sense. You can't play the big government card against me because I am asking the government to control itself. "Your own actions and inactions", sure. Will the city of Greendale (which by the way has sidewalks) allow my to drill an exploratory oil well? $4 gas as I stated above has been a self fulfilling prophecy. The liberals have done all they can to limit successful sources of power (nuclear, oil, natural gas or coal) in favor of power sources that are just as intrusive and environment unfriendly as those above, but can't supply anywhere near the need. If 20 years ago we could have drilled more, $4 gas would not have happened and we would be less dependent on dictators for our oil. Wonder what the gas price is in Saudi Arabia? Oh, like $1. Lastly, I noticed your entire post was one long attack. The train was a slow train, our society is not built to accept mass transit and as a free country we are allowed to buy the car we want. Your solution, is the destruction of freedom and forced transportation based on what you and your eco-friends decide. Odd, that is what got us to where we are currently.
What was it at when he left office?
Your assumption is that we have the solution. The problem with government is they have decided wind and solar are the answer and are attempting to destroy oil/coal/natural gas. Why? As I state power. If they were truly interested in oil dependency or the environment they would offer the billion wasted on bankrupt alterative energy firms as a prize to the first company that can produce 'x'. Where 'x' is an engine that can produce power at the same capacity or better than oil and no pollution, while still allowing it to be mass produced and mass consumed. The liberals (like fad dieters) cling to the newest energy that will donate to their politicians and do nothing to actually verify its viability. Instead, in 6 days we will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We are stealing money from the companies that could help us in order to fund companies that can't. I am against corporate welfare as well. Unfortunately it is the liberal tax system of high taxes and many loopholes that creates that.
Without government direction to delve into the less obvious, industry will exploit resources until they no longer exist. History has proven that to be the case.
What has been the incentive to produce alternative energy sources by the current energy producers? The ability for the market to work has been taken away. We have punished the fossil fuel industry for existing through either high taxes or permitting process. Are you in favor of the US to build the natural gas pipeline infrastructure required to make it a viable fuel sources? Will you allow for increased drilling of NG? I would be. "Without government direction", the current direction is a dead end and yet we are pumping billions into it. The world economy runs on oil, we cannot compete without it. Until we have a replacement, the smart thing it to exploit what we have and work towards a real alternative, not one chosen because it donates well to political parties. That is how we ended up with ethanol, only to find out it was a worse polluter then gas and drove up food costs. I don't disagree that government has produced advancements; however, not through subsidies as we currently see. We saw those advancements through axillary government agencies (military and NASA). The ones with less bureaucratic control. Then once the advancements were made, it took a capitalist system to mass produce and elevate those advancements. Oddly enough, It is the liberals killing the military and a Democratic president that has killed off NASA. There is no progressive power in allowing the capitalist system to work.
Then we have liberals pissed away billions on failing alternative energy sources? I understand that we already have gas pipelines; however, to build an infrastructure like what we have for gasoline would require an extensive overhaul.
I would like to hear about one renewable energy source that competes economically with fossil fuels. Does it exist today? Nope. Solar, wind, hydrogen(which BTW is an energy transport media, not an energy source) is nowhere near the fossil fuels in affordability. Until that happens we will be dependent on fossil fuels. Artificially forcing oil to be as or more expensive than alternatives is simply idiotic.
Your conspiracy theories that "The liberals have done all they can to limit successful sources of power (nuclear, oil, natural gas or coal) " are astounding and exhibit paranoid delusions. I once implied, and it turned out wrongly, to my director in a previous job (this was one of the largest, fastest growing companies in the world) that there was a management conspiracy afoot, and it was affecting me. The reply, which I will always remember, was "and you think we are that smart and organized that we could pull something like that off?" It turns out they were far from that smart and organized. But thanks for the compliment for liberal intelligence/organizaton. The other question is WHY would liberals want to go with "loser" energy technologies? You must agree they are not dumb. The resources/technologies you mention are all finite and harder to extract ( the easy Texas gusher days are way long gone) can tear up the land and water, and, except for nuclear, affect the atmosphere with green house gases, mercury, etc. (nuclear, if there is an accident, is catastropic). Agreed that wind, water, sun, geothermal power, etc. can be intrusive, but are not finite, affect the land and water much less, and do not release gases and other pollution in operation. The alternative to all of this is more conservation.
You didn't answer my question. Why do we continue to spend billions on failed alternative energy? I must correct your last statement. While both Democrats and Republicans have authorized alternative energy spending it is not a conservative republican doing it. It is usually a republican attempting to gain political power.
Options? If we had options we would not be forced to take the hybrid gas/ethanol mix that is forced on us. We wouldn't have billions in wasted tax dollars thrown at bankrupt alternative energy companies. They wouldn't ban incandescent light bulbs, forcing me to buy cfl bulbs that cost 3x as much. I am not anti alternative energy, I am anti failed alternative energy. I am anti government involvement in choosing what portion of the energy sector gets preferential treatment. This is left vs right because the left believes in letting the government choose who should win. While the right takes a free market approach.
During Carter I was involved in the development of tar sands in Colorado and Utah. The only reason that wasn't viable was the lack of water. It takes a tremendous amount of water to separate the oil from the sands or shale. This problem still persists. You have tried to simplify and reduce this down to suppositions that are not complete and doesn't completely addresses the problem. Alternative energy technologies are still in process and requires a great amount of initial investment. You call much of it failed, but what is the base line and measure that you're comparing to? We could go through industry after industry where monies have been invested and eventually become viable. CNG remains our best alternative for now, but it isn't the final solution. If we followed your reasoning, neither the government nor industry would invest the time, effort and treasure to bring alternatives to fruition. This is a proper area for government since it benefits us all.
The awarding of a defense contract, while not completely without it political bias, is given to the company that proves it can produce what is needed based on a set of specific guidelines asked by the military. Infrastructure, until perverted by liberal feel good equality laws and a Doyle administration giving contracts to friends, is one where the the bid is given to the lowest bidder or bidder offering best product. Either way, they do not compare to a government giving money hand over fist to bankrupt companies. If you wish to give money for innovation, then at least give it to companies that are offering innovation. As I stated above we would have accomplished 5x the innovation if we would have awarded the billions to a company that comes up with something truly usable. Not unlike your defense contracts, we ended up with stealth not because we sprinkled billions of dollars to failing airplane companies, but because the military said we will pay a company billions if they can make a plane that flies and disappears from radar. In return we had Skunk Works producing amazing flying machines for Lockheed. Picking a winner because it is a winner is not the same as picking a winner because they donate heavily or it is the current anti-oil. Apple/IBM/Microsoft would not have produced what they did if the government would have been involved as they are involved in alternative energy. The private sector has always produced better then government.
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx Click on the 4 year info. One speech by Bush dropped the price almost over night.
When that days comes we will have to come together just to survive. We are so vulnerable. Our food travels, on average, 1500 miles from where it is grown to our plates. And with our grocery system based on just in time delivery, what do you suppose will happen when fuel for transportation gets so expensive that we can not afford it? We can fight like cats and dogs over the scrapes like we fight here with words or we can attempt at creating a sustainable future by working as a community to solve our local problems. The word "local" will become a very important word going forward as we will need to find answers that will work for our local area. Answers for us will be different than in other areas of the country. It will become painful as our entire way of life was built around the automobile. I just hope we can throw down our weapons of words long enough to arrive at a consensus. In the decades to come our survival really will be at stake. Why not start now creating that consensus?
According to the AAA the Milwaukee area broke the all time high price for gasoline yesterday. $4.208/gallon. This beats the July 2008 price of $4.204/gallon of gasoline.