It’s long been obvious the Obama administration is more interested in reducing oil dependency than reducing gasoline prices. But now Republican operatives have a sound bite to go with it, after Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged the policy while addressing Congress this morning:
But Americans need relief now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) said — not high gasoline prices that could eventually push them to alternatives. …
Chu expressed sympathy but said his department is working to lower energy prices in the long term. …
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down? asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
President Obama’s delay on the Keystone XL decision has already shown the administration doesn’t view gas price reduction as a top priority. In fact, they tend to embrace high gas prices as a way to reduce usage in the U.S. (at least in non-election years).
But while Chu’s comments will be attacked by Republicans as an example of Obama’s radical environmental agenda, this may actually end up helping the president. His recent decision to support partial construction on the Keystone XL pipeline has hurt his credibility with environmentalists. Chu’s admission that the administration is still more focused on cutting down on gasoline consumption than lowering prices is a signal to green groups that the administration is still with them in overall policy.
He's played the politics beautifully. He is a master politician. No one speaks out of both sides of his mouth better. Of course, it helps to have lap dog media, but you have to marvel at the skill of this brazen, lying, sabateur.
So the follow-up questions should relate to: n n1. Whether policies and expenditures toward oil independence have made substantive and worthwhile progress . . or whether they've burned money while spitting in the wind . especially if adjusted for an economy running at full steam with higher oil use. n n2. Which non-green technologies are being supported to reach that goal and whether worthwhile progress has been made with these. n n3. What specific adjustments have been with domestic oil production and refining to offset delays in green tech so that the "goal" of independence is making substantive progress (instead of excuses)? n n4. What have been and are the specific btu or kilowatt or barrel equivalent goals for independence by quarter and how have the policies and strategies performed against them? n nInstead Chu gave woulda, coulda, and hoped for apologies for the problems not being addressed with no specific plans or adjustments to meet any sort of valuable measure.
Very good comment. We must reduce gasoline consumption for several reasons. In 1973 when I spent time in Pasadena in the Summer, I would literally cry from the smog. We breath that poison continually even now. Particularly in the cities. Gasoline engines are monstrosities of complexity and poor reliability. Electric autos are the future. We must reduce foreign oil importing, particularly from such evil monsters as Arabia, Venezuela, and others. If we must pay for this transition, then so be it. It's worth it. But the plan should be laid out to the public. If the public doesn't like it, then do it anyway – take your castor oil, dummies.
Oh Boy. Gasoline engines are not reliable ? Care to elaborate ? I didn't think so. nElectric may be the future but waaayyyyyy in the future, mate. Today Electric isn't reliable. nWe must reduce foreign oil importing, yet we won't produce our own. Make up your mind. n nIf you want Alternative sources of energy, you'll just have to wait until it's practical – until then – it makes sense to produce our own oil – cut down on the foreign sources – and encourage private development of alternatives in a practical manner. n nIf the public doesn't like – do it anyway ??? One term for sure.
Vandag, n nElectric automobiles have been around for more than a century. They are still impractical for all but a fortunate few. Talk of "reducing our dependence of foreign oil" has been around since at least the early 1970s. Now we're more dependent. At least we get most our foreign oil from Canada and Mexico. Higher energy prices hurt the poor the most.
Won't a free market and real world prices accomplish the same goal when full "externalities" are priced into each gallon?
Picture this campaign ad: n nShots of gas stations, each with a higher and higher price (use real gas stations) and each emptier and emptier of patrons, interspersed with shots of grocery store clerks raising price sticker on shelves, plus some electronics, etc., interspersed with coal mining towns with nothing moving, interspersed with Cho and Obama comments on raising prices and algae, say, interspersed with headlines about Solyndria (and others) laying off people and the big bonuses to their execs (Obama's cronies), and end with an American hungry looking kid, just like those third world ads. I don't think nothing even needs to be said. n
Yes it does. His own Words: nOBAMA: Let me sort of describe my overall policy. n What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there. n I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. n So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. n That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. n The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. n So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.
The upshot is if gas prices get too high Obama will open up the Strategic Reserve again to buy off voters.
the oil reserves should not be touched..unless or until iran gets booooomed?
Tell him to start at home and show us how HE does it. n nIn the mean time, he needs to get this through his fat head – he was not given powers for strangulation of a healthy mainstream America. nThe Lord will hold him accountable for every life impaired, halted, murdered, mangled, destroyed, uprooted, overturned and ruined due to his strangulation regulations and their NEEDLESS consequences. n nHe will reap a mighty and exponentially exploding Harvest of his own seed in Kind, upon his own head. This won't be any ordinary bumper crop or even a Miracle Grow bumper crop – but the exponential explosion of what he did to the National Debt, His Harvest will be to that debt, what that debt is to the Previous History of this nation – because that is what the definition of Harvest IS. And it is all his, and his helpful and approving cohorts.
Why there is light raining? Otherwise, nice project.