Obama’s Energy Sec. Wants Gasoline Prices To Be Three Times Higher

Posted by Duane Lester on Dec 18th, 2008 • 4,809 views Clicks

Gasoline where I am is back down to $1.49 a gallon. The national average right now is about $1.65 a gallon.

The Eco-Marxists aren’t happy with the price of gasoline being low. If you remember during the primaries, even Barack Obama said the price wasn’t bad, it just rose too fast.

To the green mafia, the price of gasoline should be so high that people can’t drive to work and have to rely on public transportation. And if the market won’t keep the price high, government will.

Steven Chu is Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary. Here’s what he thinks about gas prices:

In a sign of one major internal difference, Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

The price of petrol in Europe right now is more than three times the price of gasoline in America. So, given Mr. Chu’s preference, instead of paying $1.49 per gallon, I would be paying $4.50 a gallon. Instead of a tank of gas costing me $17 and some change, it would take $54 out of my wallet. For the record that would be $37 in taxes for each tank of gas I buy.

Believe it or not, this is what the environmentalists voted for. This is exactly what they want from an Obama government. This is the change they believed in, and we can expect more of the same across the board.

One last quote from Mr. Chu to illustrate my point:

“Coal is my worst nightmare.”

What do you think will happen to energy prices under him?

Photo Credit: glenn.batuyong

Duane Lester is an ex-Navy journalist turned blogger and podcaster. He is the lead writer and editor for All American Blogger. You can also find him on StumbleUpon, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Blog Talk Radio and Newsvine. You can contact him by clicking the "E-mail this Author" button below.
Email this author | All posts by Duane Lester | Subscribe to this author's RSS Feed

130 Responses »

daltonsbriefs on December 19th, 2008 at 1:42 am:

Interesting how oil goes to $140 a barrel, accidentally of course in the year of an election. Then he economy tanks which guarantees Obama the win. Then once we've all thrown a fit over $4.00 gasoline it comes down to $1.50 and the talk of raising taxes on gasoline kicks back in. Hmmm. I really don't wear tin foil on my head, but would like to see how much Soros invested in oil future.

Chuck on December 19th, 2008 at 2:41 am:

Just think of the wonders this will do for the economy too.

George on December 19th, 2008 at 2:48 am:

Wow, self serve costs more than full service, Obama must be doing it all wrong.

Chris on December 19th, 2008 at 2:54 am:

That's how much the gas costs, IF you buy a car wash and full service. Also… what exactly does Obama have to do with that picture? Turn your Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly shows back up, you've made yourself look like a fool here.

fitness austin on December 19th, 2008 at 2:55 am:

“Coal is my worst nightmare.”
They guys are nuts.

David in AK on December 19th, 2008 at 3:25 am:

So, you wingnuts think you should not have to pay the full price (i.e., including externalities) of the commodities you consume? How do you suggest dealing with increasing oil demand when oil production is declining? If that answer includes coal, how do you suggest dealing with the additional greenhouse forcing coming from all the extra CO2?

szenen on December 19th, 2008 at 3:26 am:

In Europe we're paying a price like this since years. In fact that's a good example that we do not have any profit from the war in middle east.

Threevolve on December 19th, 2008 at 3:27 am:

The picture is irrelevant, Chris. It's just an illustration. You're the one who looks like a fool, bud. Also, do you doubt this? Environmentalist retards would love nothing more than to force their agenda onto everyone else, regardless of how damaging it is socially and economically. It's simple – high gas prices damage our economy. Every $60, $70, $80, $90 tank of gas we're forced to buy is that much less money we are able to spend supporting our local economies. Gas stations make jack on gas, all of that money is going to taxes and oil company profits.

So, instead of putting money in the pocket of a local restaurant, or even Wal Mart, who I hate, but nonetheless, money spent there partially goes to the wages of the local employees. Shopping at Wal Mart is more supportive of your local economy than buying federally-sanctioned price-gouged gasoline.

If this happens, the American people need to make their voices heard and put it to a swift end. There is no conceivable way that arbitrarily tripling the price of gasoline would help anyone. In fact, it would completely prevent you from buying a fuel-efficient vehicle. How are you supposed to make a down payment when every extra cent is floating around in your gas tank? Absolutely asinine.

Threevolve on December 19th, 2008 at 3:30 am:

Also, Duane, shut the fuck up. If you had pasted the very next quote from that article, the truth is revealed:

"But Mr. Obama has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gas tax would be a "mistake" because it would put "additional burdens on American families right now." "

Jess on December 19th, 2008 at 3:39 am:

My fiance is an underground coal miner. The lower gas prices go, the more jobs the coal miners lose. Of course I absolutely love being able to fill my tank up for around 20 dollars but there are more consequences than most imagine.

jonyfries on December 19th, 2008 at 3:42 am:

Raising taxes on gas would not be a flat tax, it would be a regressive tax (ie poor people pay a larger percent of their income). All energy taxes are regressive not progressive or flat, both of which make more sense and should appeal to progressives more than regressive taxes. I also don't believe that increasing gas prices would increase demand for fuel efficient cars. The demand for hybrids was very high well before the gas prices spiked. There is less interest now, but with the economy as it is I believe that is likely because people can't afford the extra cost. I would guess that many people want a hybrid car both because of additional concern about the environment and as a from a desire to not have to spend any money on gas, personally I'm looking forward to the compressed air car, yes it exists and I certainly would love to own one!

Not Mike, thank god. on December 19th, 2008 at 4:55 am:

You're a douche bag.

Mike (thank God) on December 19th, 2008 at 5:01 am:

Hmm, another staggeringly apt point! I'll certainly take this into consideration. Although I was adamant about my stance before — this latest tidal wave of clarity has rocked me to my knees. After your mind blowing retort, I officially recant my previously held thoughts and ideas. In the wake of your inconceivably articulate argument defending the liberal side, my poor brain washed conservative mind can't keep up. I am undone.

jjsobd on December 19th, 2008 at 5:22 am:

LOL some people will believe anything. you poor, poor soul

Mike on December 19th, 2008 at 5:36 am:

Boy Chris. What an intelligent and coherent argument. You do your fellow liberals proud. Positively ripe with fact and reason. You really had me going there when you mentioned three of the evil conservative figureheads — a sure way to win any argument. Point of note: Next time, try to use more of an emotional appeal. Say something like "oil kills children" or something of that nature. Remember, when arguing against conservatives be sure to suggest or imply that they are bad or evil people (Hitler is a solid choice).

I must say Chris. You are one shrewd fellow. Obama is actually nowhere to be found in that picture!! Boy! You made the writer look foolish there. Good observation again! Wow! Cause, if he was in the picture. He would probably be trying to put a "5" where the "4" is on the price.

All in all you did a good job defending the standard liberal "point" (hehe I know it sounds funny lol), but remember. In the future, refrain from anything that is rational, factual, and based in reality. Instead, emotional, passionate appeals and grand claims of morality based on a 'holier than thou' pretension, are the best form of attack.

Angel5 on December 19th, 2008 at 5:46 am:

Seems to me change doesn't come easy especially when it comes out of the pockets of Mr. and Mrs. taxpayer. But honestly we are all paying a fraction of the actual cost of gas. Fear that the market will suffer by not being able to pay for a dinner at TGI Fridays is naive. If anything a price hike should be an opportunity for the market to adjust.

Penny on December 19th, 2008 at 5:46 am:

I have nothing against nuclear energy except that I am against us just putting it somewhere when we can easily recycle it. If the United States allows nuclear power plants to recycle the waste, the I am very much for it.

Penny on December 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am:

Then by your logic, all drugs should be legal because the government shouldn't be able to tell us what we should and should not use.

GreenFinland on December 19th, 2008 at 6:16 am:

Well, it's my opinion based on my experience, I think. No, I wouldn't have even started cycling if I could drive 10 miles without thinking the gas I consume. I'm wishing ill to all those overweight car-user too lasy to get up and go out. Overtaxed, hell yeah? Well, they use the taxed money to offer free education and cheap healthcare so I'm willing to pay for that.

Yail Bloor on December 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am:

The argument for raising gas prices steadily makes good sense economically. Eventually, gas will become as expensive as it is in Europe. The only reason we have cheap gas now is because the economy is tanking and fewer people are buying it. Also, I happen to agree that we should encourage people to get greener vehicles through taxation. Its the same concept as encouraging people to stop smoking through taxation. But that argument is certainly debatable. I'm not saying I would 'force' it on anyone, but I would vote for it. Suffice it to say, don't think that your gas price will suddenly jump $50. The key point here is that gas prices should rise gradually. That way we can avoid the dramatic spikes we witnessed in the past year.

GreenFinland on December 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am:

Are you serious! 17$ for a tankful of gas? No wonder you consume the black gold like there is no tomorrow. Now I see what is your problem with enviromental issues. It's just too cheap to use cars. It's currently -15C outside and I'm still going to cycle 10 miles because the gas costs so much. I hope for my cold, black heart that you too will face the true gasprices.

graham on December 19th, 2008 at 6:30 am:

THANK GOD!

It's time we the people started collecting for renewable fuels!!!

Instead of enriching the rich Saudi bastards who are screwing us…. and bombing our buildings.

drizzle2099 on December 19th, 2008 at 6:52 am:

Read your own quote from the article, dingleberry. "Additional burdens on American families right now. Right now. Right now. RIGHT NOW! Chu will not get what he wants right now. But his other clips says that this may be a reality soon.

Sam on December 19th, 2008 at 6:53 am:

Wtf lol. He is absolutely right, this is what we need to do. A gradual rise over 15 years is a lot better than rapid rising and falling over a matter of weeks or months. There's nothing wrong with using public transportation, and people should at least consider buying more environmentally friendly cars. This will also put pressure on car companies to stop sucking oil company dick and start developing more eco-friendly cars. They have the technology, and it's not more expensive/difficult. It's high time we have a president who isn't sitting in the lap of the Saudi oil lords.

Lou on December 19th, 2008 at 7:12 am:

If I could fill up my car here in the UK for £11 I'd drive everywhere.

Intelligence on December 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am:

The government also shouldn't be able to tell people not to murder other people because that's their choice. Right?
Wrong. The difference is that murder (obviously) has a detrimental effect on other people (death). That's the reason we have a government in the first place. Using fossil fuels also has a detrimental effect on other people. This is because using fossil fuels causes global warming, which causes hurricanes to have more energy (Katrina) and sea level to rise (big deal in Florida). Another issue that has not been mentioned here is that with coal and oil WE WILL RUN OUT!! It is not a matter of if we run out of it, but when. This is not a political issue up for debate, but it is fact determined by scientific reasoning, not banter where the loudest person wins the argument.
Ask any geologist or geochemist if global warming is real and they will slap you for listening to bill oreilly instead of someone who knows anything about scientific reasoning and climatology.
So back to the point. Taxing oil will encourage the market to adjust to renewable fuel sources, such as switchgrass ethanol, solar power, wind power. Doing this is NECESSARY because we can't wait until we pump the last barrel of oil out of the ground before we start making these changes, which we absolutely must.

Mike (is a douche) on December 19th, 2008 at 7:38 am:

Saying the exact opposite of what you mean is only effective when done tastefully. You, honesty, just sound like an asshole, regardless of your argument. But we do need higher gas prices. You can't argue with "we're wrecking the earth."

Penny on December 19th, 2008 at 7:40 am:

Something we have to remember is that taxes are going to have to be raised because our country is in debt up to its ears. If it's in gas, then it will be a flat tax something conservatives seem to root for. Or this gas tax money could go towards alternate, cheaper, local energy. Something that will help the economy.

And on the topic of coal being the man's worst enemy, he has a point. He agrees with most environmental chemists who say CO2 is a contributor to global warming. Coal, when burned, puts out a high amount of CO2 and it also puts out a fair amount of CO when burned in large quantities. That's even with clean coal technology. If you don't think global warming is an issue (as I suspect most of you don't) then remember that even with the cleanest coal technology that I've seen doesn't get out ALL of the carcinogens and particulate. Coal is a cheap crutch that our country will rely on until it is as expensive as oil. The man is saying it's his worst enemy because no one will put the effort into new cleaner technologies until coal is ungodly expensive like oil.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am:

If you are willing to pay for it, then stop complaining about it. Not trying to sound rude, but either you think you are overtaxed and that has caused you to bicycle in -15C weather, which can't be fun, or you gladly bike to work so when you are sick as Hell from biking to work you can get a free doctor's visit.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 7:44 am:

If you are willing to pay for it, then stop complaining about it. Not trying to sound rude, but either you think you are so overtaxed that has caused you to bicycle in -15C weather, which can't be fun and has made you bitter enough that you wish other people's lives sucked as much, or you gladly bike to work so when you are sick as Hell from biking to work you can get a free doctor's visit.

You can't really have it both ways.

And wishing ill on anyone isn't cool, regardless of the reason.

Duane on December 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am:

They're not overtaxed, they just have less supply, asshole. Way to alienate any European readers. Amateur.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am:

If you are willing to pay for it, then stop complaining about it. Not trying to sound rude, but either you think you are so overtaxed that you have to bicycle in -15C weather, which can't be fun and has made you bitter enough that you wish other people's lives sucked as much as yours, or you gladly bike to work so when you are sick as Hell from biking to work you can get a free doctor's visit.

You can't really have it both ways.

And wishing ill on anyone isn't cool, regardless of the reason.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am:

I agree.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am:

This is because using fossil fuels causes global warming

No they don't. CO2 has never driven warming on Earth. It has always followed it. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. The most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor, but you can't really create a global socialist redistribution system by demonizing water vapor. So, we attack carbon dioxide.

which causes hurricanes to have more energy (Katrina) and sea level to rise (big deal in Florida).

More nonsense. Scientists don't know if warming will lead to more hurricanes or less. And where is the rise in ocean waters.

Taxing oil will encourage the market to adjust to renewable fuel sources, such as switchgrass ethanol, solar power, wind power.

Ethanol puts out more greenhouse gas than gasoline and is less efficient. And tell me, where do I buy a wind powered car?

Sarah B. on December 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am:

There are some big flaws with the comparison between the UK and the US. That is size and infrastructure. The concept of raising gas prices so people will use public transport or hybrids is unrealistic. Its a good Idea for places like New York, Chicago, San Fransisco, or even Nashville and Atlanta. But unlike the UK and the rest of Europe we to not have a readily available public transit through out the country. The UK being smaller in size then Oregon with a population of close to 61 Million, it easier and necessary for them to have a workable transit system. I have no other options here in rural USA. Raising gas prices to that level would not only cripple me and the others who rely on there cars to simply get to work, but the farming and trucking Industries. Mess with those two and you mess with the entire economy. We have already seen the effects, not only in the cost of filling up, but in the produce sections and layoffs of companies that utilize trucking and had to pay rising prices with lower incoming profits.I am not saying that gas prices is the only reason for our current economic situation, but it is definitely a factor.
I would also love to have some sort of hybrid, but as a server I am will not be able to afford one any time soon. (Unless you want to argue I should buy one on credit, but we all see how well that is working). It will years before any more fuel efficient are available for someone of my income (aka majority of the population). So I will have to make do with my 31 mpg coupe. Until there are other viable options for transportation, I have take the gas prices as they are so I can go the 35 mins to work.

intelligence on December 19th, 2008 at 8:14 am:

I will give you that CO2 is not the most effective greenhouse gas, methane and water vapor are more effective. However, there has not been a large anthropogenic increase in water vapors in the atmosphere in the last two centuries correlating to a demonstrated increase in mean global temperature.
I didn't say warming will cause more hurricanes, I said it will cause hurricanes to be more powerful. As water gets warmer, oceans have more energy to produce more force. This is simple physics.
Rise in waters–as water gets warmer, it expands. Expanding water in the ocean causes sea level to rise. Once again, very simple science.
Corn ethanol is less efficient than gasoline, but look into switchgrass and sugarcane ethanol. There is much more potential in these products.
I mentioned wind as an alternative to coal, not gasoline.

GreenFinland on December 19th, 2008 at 8:49 am:

First note: I'm sorry for my harsh languge. I'm not a native english-speaker so my suply of idioms isn't that large.
Secondly: I didn't complain, I made a statement. It's not even cold yet! I would cycle even when temperature is below -25 degrees of C. We don't all live in Florida, you know. I start complaining when the plumbings freeze during mid-winter.
Third note: My life doesn't suck. I get a good dose of exercise and fresh air every day because I don't use (or to be honest: own) car. I'm both healthy and energic.
And finaly: My point is: Your government should have more control over it's resources. Just because you are filthy rich and have enermous suplies of oil doesn't mean you could spend it like there is no tomorrow. Here in Europe the enviromental issues have again started to pop up after Obama's election. We are praying and hoping that the USA begins to realise it's place in the world as a economical leader and act like one too. There are more pressing issues than war on terror.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am:

You're right. There goes the Finland demographic. Except for the part where he admits he is overtaxed.

Thanks for commenting. Your mom is calling you for dinner. Bye.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am:

I feel you are a good person. I think we are just going to disagree on this point. Restricting access to a commodity is a form of price control, and price controls have a very negative track record.

Let the market work. Liberty is the solution to the human condition.

Jordan on December 19th, 2008 at 9:05 am:

I love all of you for saying its right for the goverenment to choose for the people what is best for them. Tax out smoking, tax out oil use, what's the next step. Personally I like my freedom to choose what to do and when to do it. If gas prices are 1.50 in my area then why not take advantage of it while I can. If the price goes up then maybe it's time to try something different. But it should be the individual's choice not the goverenments. Next thing you know its mending is better than spending.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:11 am:

I will give you that CO2 is not the most effective greenhouse gas, methane and water vapor are more effective. However, there has not been a large anthropogenic increase in water vapors in the atmosphere in the last two centuries correlating to a demonstrated increase in mean global temperature.

Please explain how the Earth cooled last year when the amount of CO2 increased? Please explain why it has cooled a third of a degree since Al Gore's crockumentary was released?

Please explain how you justify giving American dollars to Russia to pay for carbon credit, money which they can use to invade Georgia or build weapons to attack us.

Please explain why the amount of ice in Antarctica is growing.

details on December 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am:

Hey,
don't miss to watch the fantastic logos site
and download free stuff
also if you have a good site and creative you want to share it just send it to us and we will add it to our fantastic site collections for free
http://www.fantastic-logos.com/image/tid/3
thanks

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:51 am:

I couldn't care less about extra CO2. More CO2 leads to a greener planet, not a warmer one. CO2 has never driven warming. Ever.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am:

Um, did I say Obama wanted to raise the price of gasoline 300%? No. But by nominating Chu, he is supporting the idea.

Also, he said, "right now." That doesn't mean he's against it in five years.

Truth is rarely revealed when Obama speaks, Threevolve.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am:

I'm not saying I would 'force' it on anyone, but I would vote for it.

You wouldn't force it on anhyone, but you would vote to have it forced on someone. What's the difference?

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am:

I'm not saying I would 'force' it on anyone, but I would vote for it.

You wouldn't force it on anyone, but you would vote to have it forced on someone. What's the difference?

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am:

It's just too cheap to use cars.

Based on what? Your opinion? Would you cycle to work if gas wasn't so high where you are? Why are you wishing ill on me because you live in an overtaxes society?

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am:

How about nuclear energy? That's clean. What's wrong with it?

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am:

Well said.

Duane Lester on December 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am:

It's just too cheap to use cars.

Based on what? Your opinion? Would you cycle to work if gas wasn't so high where you are? Why are you wishing ill on me because you live in an overtaxed society?

Yail Bloor on December 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am:

The difference is that I voting. We live in a democratic republic. Unfortunately, or fortunately – whichever the case may be, this means we decide issues by either voting for representatives that decide issues of governance or by voting directly in smaller scale activities. So, when I say I would vote for it, but not force it on anyone, I am referring to the fact that I alone am not capable of deciding the fate of the legislation. Many other people would have to agree with me. A majority (at least of the voters and in my opinion we shouldn't really care about someone's opinion if they don't participate in the political process) in fact. Would this technically still be 'forcing' the issue? To an extent, sure. But that is the problem with many governmental policies. There are very few that everyone agrees on. And of course, the door is always open to vote to change whatever policy was put in place – but of course that would be 'forcing' the reverse. I hold no ill will towards those who disagree with me, in fact I would hope that they would be vocal and articulate in their arguments in order for us to develop a more perfect union. So, after that wee ramble perhaps I would say that, in the end, it is not 'forcing' it because any policy can be changed given enough votes.

done on December 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am:

CO2 levels–
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The climatology of the Earth is a very complex system that fluctuates within trends, such as temperature rise.
Ice levels–
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p25s10-wogi.ht...
The amount of ice in the polar regions is not growing.

If you still refuse to believe that the Earth isn't warming slightly and believe that we can run on oil and coal forever, then wait till we run out of oil to see. With current consumption levels, estimates range from 20 years to 80 years of oil supply left underground on Earth.

Pam on December 20th, 2008 at 2:10 am:

Coal is our most abundant and cheap domestic energy source.
Of course I truly believe Obama is the beginning of the final end of our Country as we know it.

Cause withouta rebel on December 20th, 2008 at 2:37 am:

This is the change I was hoping for in America. In the U.S., and a large number of countries, there is an existing obsession with the purchase of services and goods that are completely unnecessary. No product can properly be labeled 'sustainable' because anything that costs money uses some material, whether it be a plastic, chemical, fuel, etc. The earth contains a limited number of every resource. So, inevitably these terrible 'Eco-Marxists'(a label that doesn't fit if you knew about Marxism) will be necessary to help protect what is left of the planet. Many of the comments on here complain that environmentalists are trying to 'force their agenda'. Our goal is not a powerful, overbearing government that restricts your life, but to stop people from destroying something which they do not own. The earth is not a cold dead thing you can claim.

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."- Ghandi

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."- Native American Proverb

Cause Withouta Rebel on December 20th, 2008 at 2:41 am:

Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,
For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain.
America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,
And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea.”
George Carlin

Duane Lester on December 20th, 2008 at 3:54 am:

Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Lev…

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. (meaning it has not been tracked as long as the North Pole) Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice edge were sporadic.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 4:53 am:

Public transportation is great if you live in a city with public transportation. It seems like a lot of people don't understand that a GIGANTIC part of the United States is rural, or they just figure all the people in "flyover" states just don't matter. Most of the country moves on privately owned vehicles, and increasing the operating cost doesn't help them in any way.

When Toyota builds a Prius tractor for farmers to use when growing the soybeans for your tofu burger then you can come and talk about raising prices on fuel. Until then an increase in fuel prices is going to hurt people who aren't rich. We're not all jet-set movie stars in this country.

El_Rob on December 20th, 2008 at 4:56 am:

Try 99% of all the worlds species are extinct. We were not around for all of that. He may be arrogant, but you are ignorant.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 5:06 am:

The Earth doesn't need your protection. It was here before any of us and it will be long after we're all gone. Thinking that the planet somehow needs us to "save" it is pure arrogance.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 5:57 am:

If you really believe that something needs to be done to stop the destruction of habitat, then give money to the Nature Conservancy. Raising the price of gasoline by 300% doesn't do squat to stop deforestation. Your heart seems to be in the right place, but your head is up in the wrong place. That's not my arrogance talking, it's just me being an asshole.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 6:05 am:

You're forgetting that Bush isn't a dictator. The Democrats were in charge of Congress for 3/4 of the Bush Presidency. They're the ones that write the checks, Bush just signs them. If he's guilty of anything, it's of letting the Democrats spend too much money.

But I get your argument. Americans are evil and we deserve to be taxed until we're bleeding from our asses. The typical liberal argument.

But hey, God bless you for getting involved.

*for the record (yet again) I'm not a fan of GWB.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 6:05 am:

I get your argument. Americans are evil and we deserve to be taxed until we're bleeding from our asses. The typical liberal argument.

But hey, God bless you for getting involved.

*for the record (yet again) I'm not a fan of GWB.

Samm on December 20th, 2008 at 7:19 am:

I lived most of my life in a rural area, so I understand that a car is practically a necessity. But how much gas is wasted because people are careless when they make several trips to the store, or go for long car rides out of boredom. The list goes on and on. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We all need to cut back on our buying and spending.
I'm an advocate for sustainable agriculture and I buy most of my food from the local farmers market. And I walk there. Funny how the same people who cry that gas prices are going up hurt the poor often support politicians who give major tax breaks for oil companies and CEO's. Go figure.

Cause Withouta Rebel on December 20th, 2008 at 7:35 am:

Yes, think about how much time that took. And that includes the ice age and many other mass extinctions. Man is completely altering the planet in a way that I can only hope is some day reversible. If we keep up at this pace, within a hundred years over half of all mammals will be extinct in the wild. And I don't understand your argument. So, since other creatures went extinct it's alright for us to destroy the rest? Who gave you the right?

Cause Withouta Rebel on December 20th, 2008 at 7:37 am:

I do. World Wildlife Fund. And raising the price of gasoline does do something by helping prevent oil drilling offshore, and more especially in ANWR, the only true natural habitat left in America.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 7:50 am:

I used to be a Democrat. People like you are the reason I'm not a Democrat any more.

Eugene,OR on December 20th, 2008 at 7:52 am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&fe...
is science too liberal to be posted?

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 7:57 am:

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with you that we can do more to maintain wildlife areas, and I admire your passion. I just don't agree with your tactics.

Andrew Riley on December 20th, 2008 at 7:58 am:

I think that where you and I disagree is that you think people should be punished for wasting gas. And even though I don't waste gas I would be included in that punishment. I encourage responsible behavior, but you said we all "need" to cut back on buying and spending. I don't "need" to do that, and I certainly don't "need" you or a politician telling me how to live my life, how to spend my money, or that I'm going to be punished for driving to the store more often than you think I should.

Maybe Barack Obama will surprise the heck out of me and invent a solar powered car. Maybe he will use his position as President to champion the building of a hundred new nuclear power plants. And maybe he will try to force you and I to be more responsible by taxing the shit out of us so we will spend money we don't have on "green" cars that either don't exist or that we can't afford to buy. I suspect it will be the latter.

If we don't give oil companies tax breaks, they'll find another country that will give them tax breaks. But you and I don't work for an oil company, so why should we care? The oil companies will still be doing the same thing if they move to Mexico, but at least the U.S. won't have all that icky guilt that comes from having a dirty corporation contributing to our economy.

It just makes me scratch my head when I look at the amount of taxes that Americans are paying, and we still have so many people who are actually wanting the government to raise taxes on fuel. I think you have it half right when you say we all need to cut back on buying and spending. It's the government that needs to cut back on the buying, spending, and TAXING.

Samm on December 20th, 2008 at 8:13 am:

That's what the Republicans have been saying. But then they go and spend TRILLIONS of dollars on wars that have accomplished nothing, and sold the country into debt with China. We all need to cut back on spending, as individuals and as a nation. I think the big point is that the increase in gas taxes would be spread over 15 years. That should be plenty of time to allow consumers (which you and I both are) to absorb the cost and it will hopefully encourage us to think about where we are spending money, whether we are wasting gas or what size tv we buy.
The politics of the Bush era have discouraged car companies from making greener cars, even though they HAVE the technology, because it would hurt the oil companies. Those policies have fucked us up big time, because the oil industry is going to go down and then we're going to be scrambling to get cars that are more energy efficient when we should have been working on them the whole time.
It's not the government that is going to be "punishing" you or anyone else for using resources that are running out. It's the economy. American's are so used to having everything at their fingertips. The food shortages (that I might add, are very much related to corporate abuse of power) that are having major impacts on much of the world are just starting to hit us here in the US, but if we don't do anything to change the way we live, we will have food shortages. The same with oil. Everything we use has to come from somewhere, and there is a process to get the resources we use on a daily basis, which I'm sure you know. We cannot keep living lifestyles in which we use way too much of the worlds resources forever. That is one of the reasons we're in a recession right now, and our actions are going to have a big impact on the way our children and grandchildren live in the future. It's economic karma.

Cause Withouta Rebel on December 20th, 2008 at 9:12 am:

"Since the year 1600, a total of 83 mammals species (2.1%) and 113 birds (1.3%) are known to have become extinct." "The single largest and expanding threat is habitat destruction caused by human actions."
The arrogant one is you, my friend.

Jillian on December 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am:

And George Bush wasn't? Let's get serious.

Duane Lester on December 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am:

Nope. In fact, we have pages filled with videos questioning the science of the Church of Global Warming, using science. It's called debate, which the leftist environmentalists refuse to participate in and instead choose to force their views on the masses via legislation

DAN SMITH on December 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am:

ENERGY WATCH:

"ENERGY WATCH " CURRENTLY HAS A SOURCE IN THE UK. AND THE POOR GUY IS NOW PAYING NEARLY TEN DOLLARS PER GALLON OF PETROL. HE'S NOT THE LEAST BIT HAPPY ABOUT IT. HE, LIKE MOST BRITS, THINKS THE WHOLE THING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND PEAK OIL IS A CROCK; THAT IT'S NOTHING BUT ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR A MEDDLING, HIGHLY INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT TO PRY EVEN DEEPER INTO THEIR RAPIDLY DWINDLING CIVIL RIGHTS. LAST YEAR, HER MAJESTY'S MINISTRY OF ENERGY EVEN LAUNCHED A BITTER, NASTY CAMPAIGN AGAINST CELEBRATING VALENTINE'S DAY. BECAUSE FAR TOO MANY HYDROCARBONS WERE BEING WASTED, IN ORDER TO SHIP FLOWERS, CANDY AND GIFTS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THIS IS THEIR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.. AND CHU WANTS TO TAKE US DOWN THE SAME ROAD. NO THANK YOU. AND I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FEELS VERY MUCH THE SAME.. GAME OVER..

Cause Without Rebel on December 20th, 2008 at 11:59 am:

I'm not a Democrat. More of a third party person. So you don't really have much to worry about.

Barfly on December 20th, 2008 at 12:11 pm:

"we" need higher gas prices. Typical Liberal; speaking for everyone. How about you pay as much as you want to save the earth and I'll do something more important with my hard earned $$$; like whatever the hell I want since it's MY money. A-Hole.

Andrew Riley on December 21st, 2008 at 1:12 am:

Pretty much anything that doesn't require a government mandate or a government tax. Private organizations are the way to go. If people care about something then let them take action on it. The government doesn't know how to manage money, so who in their right mind would count on them to properly manage the tax money they want to take for this? They can't manage the federal budget, they couldn't keep from using social security money for something else, and they couldn't even make money running a brothel.

Green Underbelly on December 21st, 2008 at 1:57 am:

I think your arguments would be damn sound if we didn't live on a finite planet with finite resources. Can you at least qualify the belief that localities that produce their own power and products (increasing energy efficiency and self-sufficiency) and don't rely on commute/transportation-in-general is a swell belief? Is that something we could be working towards?

Duane Lester on December 21st, 2008 at 2:13 am:

In thirty years, the Caribou near the oil pipeline in Alaska has g…:

In the Kuparuk River oil field, for example, when…

I used to live in Alaska. If you have seen one acre of tundra, you have seen a million.

Jason Mitchener on December 21st, 2008 at 3:39 am:

Look, I'm all for alternative energy sources but not at the cost of artificially inflating gasoline prices. Any time we mess with the natural flow of supply and demand things get screwed up. I highly suggest people read the book "Human Action" for a detailed look at free enterprise.

Conservative? on December 21st, 2008 at 3:46 am:

Is what makes you conservative your eloquence Mike? Or is it the fact that you need to somehow show your ever so advanced vernacular through a message board? Or is it the fact that you have no idea what to say? In all of your critiques you did not argue for your side once. Instead, you felt the need to continue a verbal assault that you so eloquently denounced. Great job. Politicians say things, it is there job to do so. If you were so happy being a conservative American, presumably all hopped up on American pride, you would know that the energy secretary cannot do this on his own. Just like the president cannot say "I want it this way so it will be" CHecks and balances are a wonderful thing, not that you would understand what that means living in a George W Bush administration.

Adam on December 21st, 2008 at 6:00 am:

Three times the cost is actually a 200% increase. Your headline is wrong. Other than that, fine post.

Mark on December 21st, 2008 at 7:00 am:

Check the 1992 Rio summit where all signatories for their respected nations agreed that the climate of the earth was rising and it is due to anthropological activity. As for the choice of Mr. Chu it's completely correct in my opinion. It is necessary to ween America off the dependence of foreign oil, forcibly if necessary.

Andrew on December 21st, 2008 at 8:13 am:

"as water gets warmer, it expands."

EEEEHHH! Wrong! Please open a book sometime. Or you could just throw some water in the freezer every once in a while.

Andrew on December 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am:

Who cares about Earth? As long as we are alive it doesn't matter. Protecting the planet for the sake of protecting the planet is a waste and forcing other people to do it will backfire on you big time. I could care less how much ice there is or how many animal species exist as long as the human race lives on. Having a bunch of animals around is just a novelty.

What's your point? on December 21st, 2008 at 8:26 am:

What's your argument to the contrary? Gas *should* cost a lot of money; people should commute by public transportation when possible; people should live closer to their office. Why is cheap gasoline and the choice to live more than 20 miles from your work and driving everywhere considered such a virtue by conservatives? These are vestiges of selfish people who wish to remain in isolation and call it "freedom." Denying your actions have any consequences larger than your own personal bubble is a quaint view of the world; but it isn't a policy the 52% the rest of us wish to glorify.

Get your facts right on December 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am:

Democrats weren't in charge of Congress for 3/4ths of Bush's tenure in office. They were in charge from 2000-2002, then the Republicans took control of both Houses from 2002-2006, when the bulk of the legislative actions most egregious occurred, then the Democrats took back control from 2006-2008. Nothing much has happened in the last 2 years, because of Bush's ability to veto. In addition, with the appointment of Roberts and Alito, conservatives have had a majority in the Suprem Court. But keep pretending Democrats spend too much money — what specific bills/spending are you talking about anyway?

Dougall on December 21st, 2008 at 9:00 am:

This thread is funny. Mike, first, very amusing posts, very sobering as well, but you fell beneath your own standard with this last one. I have a question for you. Please bear with me. If you wanted to, say, buy sex from a child, is it un-American that you aren't allowed to do that in your country? (Heh. That's what Thailand is for…. sorry, couldn't resist) Presuming then that there is some validity to the complex of ideas concerning co2 and warming, why would it be ok for the government to put a stop to the one thing but do nothing about the other? If you aren't free to buy a plane ticket to Cuba or legalised marijuana or even smoke in bars any more (for, I might add, good reason), then why should driving one's single-occupant SUV 40 miles to work every day be considered ok? It doesn't sound like you're particularly free to do whatever the hell you want with your money to me.

Cause Withouta Rebel on December 21st, 2008 at 9:00 am:

Private industry doesn't prevent monopolies. Private industry doesn't prevent child labor. Private industry doesn't prevent slave labor. Private industry doesn't prevent ridiculous working hours. Private industry doesn't prevent unlivable wages. Private industry doesn't prevent pollution.

There is no way private industry is going to prevent drilling, deforestation, or land development because even though there may be a demand, there is no profit. Yes, I donate money to many charities, as do a lot of people and corporations, but they aren't going to get enough money to prevent other corporations from profiting off of the damage of the planet. Do I want the government to have more money? No. If they did implement this, they should offset it by eliminating other taxes. There are a million things our government does that I don't want it to do. But there are some things the free market doesn't fix.

Private industry works only with a revenue source, but some things are worth more than a piece of paper.

Duane Lester on December 21st, 2008 at 9:02 am:

I have never claimed to be a math whiz, but it seems to me that if you multipy 100% by 3, you get 300%. I am not saying I'm right on this, but that seems correct. If you Google "300%", which I did, it says "300%=3"

Where is my error?

dougall on December 21st, 2008 at 9:07 am:

Hear hear!

Dougall on December 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am:

then why are you so hostile-defensive in every post above this point in the thread, Duane? Treat yourself better, my friend. Incidentally, biking in the cold is fun, try it sometime with a mind toward learning why.

If you're a Christian, remember, only with the eyes of a child can you enter the kingdom of Heaven. Practical advice for even the staunchest atheist!

dougall on December 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am:

weird, that was meant to be beneath your prior post.

Andrew on December 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am:

I guarantee you that over 52% of Americans enjoy low gas prices. Anyhow, it's not what people SHOULD do, it's what people CAN do. Sure, some people believe that we SHOULD commute by public transportation but that doesn't mean we have to. Let people do what they want and stop letting the government control prices. Whenever the government controls prices SOMEONE gets screwed (usually the poor). This is what happens with agricultural subsidies.

No Math Whiz Either on December 21st, 2008 at 10:11 am:

Three times the cost IS a 200% increase. The final cost is three times, or 300% of the original figure. A 300% INCREASE means adding 300% to the original figure, for a final cost of 400% of the original.
Good thread, and the difference between 200% increase or 300% increase doesn't change the truth of the ideas.

GreenFinland on December 21st, 2008 at 10:53 am:

Based for my studies about the american culture I don't judge you neither but still I would recommend that you should study more closely the big picture. I'm getting off-topic but if this is a closure to this debate I don't mind.

How much weight should be put to liberty if the fate of the Earth hangs in the other end of the scale? The Europe is still bitter about Kyoto treaty and in the last 8 years you haven't done much to prevent global warming. You are in the same boat with China and India. And neither of those two isn't goin to do anything before you back up the treaty. You finaly have voted (democraticly chosen) a president who has been given power to do something about this – and he's also willing to act.

On the other hand, your economy has gotten bad shape because wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You say: "let the market work" but without help from the government your markets are going to crash. The 700 Billion Bailout Bill isn't going to pay itself back easily – you got to make sacrifices. As much as I support liberties I still think that the goverment should also do some governing to prevent these oncoming disasters – stock market crash and depression and the global warming.

But let's close this one now. Had been a pleasure talking with you.

Andrew Riley on December 21st, 2008 at 11:30 am:

The government will not offset a new tax by eliminating another one.

Just because I believe in a cause doesn't mean the government should force everyone else to give money to support it. Nothing is worth more than a piece of paper called the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't grant government the power to force me to give money to support your cause, no matter how well intentioned it might be.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. Even though you and I agree that there is a problem, I know that your plan of action is one that I can never support. There are a lot of people like me who agree with you on the core issue, but can't support your tactics because we know the government can't be trusted to do the right thing with money it takes from us. In effect, you (meaning people who share your idea) are hurting your own cause by alienating people who agree with you but will fight against your tactics rather than joining with you to solve the problem.

It's an interesting situation, and one that I don't think is going to be resolved here.

Merry Christmas.

Cause Withouta Rebel on December 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm:

What tactics would you take?

Duane Lester on December 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 am:

Ok, I'm with you now. Thanks.

Chris on December 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 am:

I'd say FIRST PROVE that CO2 actually creates deleterious warming effects upon climate. Since that is not yet proven, you are a fool to seek to enact counter-CO2 public policy. [But in the U.S. our political parties have mascots and only ONE has a JACKASS as it's mascot.]

There are growing scientific community warnings that warming and cooling effects in climate are MASSIVELY more influenced by sun activity and by activity in the magnetosphere. We are now in a period of roughly 22 years of low sun activity. Let's SEE if warming resumes (it has stopped since 1998!), or if colder climes attain.

Incidentally, everyone always pays the full price of commodities including payable externalities. That is what is meant by a COMMODITIES market. Look it up: Market: In economics is the type of transaction environment where the true cost is minimized and efficiency in transaction and in production is greatest.

Asking for non-market effects such as price-fixing, targeted prices and special taxation is not an example of some kind of special wisdom, instead it is arrogance and hubris and ignorance itself.

Will on December 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 am:

Do you understand that low fuel prices helped create much of the economic situation we're in today?
Certainly a well read person such as yourself doesn't need me to draw the lines for you, but I think it's safe to say that continued cheaper fuel prices will do nothing but help us continue down the road of burning oil like it's in infinite supply when we all know that in reality it's quite the opposite.
Our thirst for cheap oil has put Americans in a tough place, as well as our service men and women who are dying to secure oil for our future. I can say this as a veteran (Army 91W) of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know why we were there, and I can tell you, that didn't spend a lot of time exporting "freedom".

For that reason alone, I feel that all the political BS needs to be put aside and people need to understand that conservation isn't just something for those, "tree huggin' hippy pinko Liberals".

It's time for this political armchair quarterbacking to stop. We're not rooting for sports teams here. This is OUR country, and the future of it hinges on what we do NOW. Continuing on with our unbridled thirst for oil is not beneficial to the future of this country, and anyone who says otherwise either has ties in some way to big oil, or is a complete idiot. Which one will you be?

Duane Lester on December 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 am:

So, to you, it's better to give money to an entity that didn't earn it than to the entity that did. Why is it ok for the government to make a profit off the backs of another, but not ok for the oil companies to earn a profit off their investment?

RespectYourself on December 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 am:

Ok….
Polluting is bad, destroying the world for individual profit is wrong. Corporations are richer than countries. They go into poor countries exploit their resources for themselves while polluting their environment to make a buck. These people lived off the land. They are no enslaved to work the only available jobs. Most corporations sole goal is to make money at whatever the expense. Try learning about consumerism and how your cheap products exploited every worker down the line from resources, health care, wages, rights, and many other forms. We need to fight this evil in our country before they are too big to be stopped. Consider the money on your gas a blood tax. You deserve it if you supported Bush going into the War, and you give a shit about people besides yourself if your a liberal. Did it ever occur to you that for every dollar of profit you make someone loses a dollar? We need to stand up now and prevent our world from being owned by a select few who's only desire is to enslave us further. Gas really isn't the issue. It's one that was brought to our attention. This bailout don't even get me started. So first they get to exploit us for profit then they get money for doing it so well it crashed our economy? Sure they help the economy out, but only because they bullied every smaller business out in their desire to own the world. This needs to stop now, or you will live in a future world of Corporate Control. Your selling yourself and kids into slavery…

Top 150 economies of Countries and Corporations: http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0718-worlds_largest...
Check out the "The Story of Stuff": http://www.storyofstuff.com

Eric on December 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 am:

I recently read an article that said if the price of gas goes up, Chrysler will begin marketing all electric versions of many of its models. Wouldn't it be nice to never have to fill up at the gas station again?

derek on December 23rd, 2008 at 7:16 am:

dont you just love conspiracy theorists? (hint: ^^^^^^^ look up one post)

jack on December 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 am:

All of you conservative people claiming that the government wants to tax gas because of environmental concerns clearly do not understand simple economics. Gas prices were high, which decreased demand, demand became low which caused the prices to lower, prices are now low which means demand is increasing, this increase in demand will raise prices in the future. Those raised prices give huge profits to oil companies, the government sees an opportunity to prevent that from happening, rather then give the huge profits to oil companies, they think it makes more sense to tax gas to the price it wouldve become, demand will always stay relatively low and those still willing to pay the price will give money to the government rather than the oil company. The government can then use those taxes to help you conservative assholes by improving the conditions of your nation.

Nuthr Stumbler on December 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am:

Duane,

You get the Big StumbleUpon Thumbs Down. Whining about future energy and environmental policy is, for you, just another small scrap you’re trying to make so much red meat out of for your vapid flat-earthers to wail over. It’s gonna be a long 4+ years in the wilderness for you and yours.

But for those unfortunate enough to have stumbled this way into the midst of ever so many disingenuous attempts to debate climate change and feel the need to stand up to it (here or elsewhere) don’t worry – the debate is over and here are some tools you might find useful:

Even Newsweek says it’s over: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//007081.htm...
Dealing with flat-earth fundies, here’s how you can answer: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Nuthr Stumbler

Andrew Riley on December 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 am:

Wow, even NEWSWEEK?!?! That bastion of unbiased – HA HA HA – sorry, I just couldn't make it all the way through without breaking character. But seriously… you're using newsweek as an unbiased source? I'm sure you must be pulling our collective legs.

The debate really is over though. The climate is changing. It's constantly changing and has been doing so for the last…. 4.5 billion years or so. That what the Earth does. If you want to live in a world without climate change, consider the Moon. You won't even need to bring food, I heard Al Gore said the moon was made out of organic tofu. Idiot.

Andrew Riley on December 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am:

life is hard on December 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am:

yeah….everyone here has a right to be so upset. life in america is incredibly difficult. it's a scientific fact that middle-class americans (ESPECIALLY those that reside in quaint suburbs) have the hardest lives that any civilization has ever had in Earth's history. keep the tempers flaring, folks. scream until we have justice. we shouldn't be satisfied until we never have to lift a finger again. this sense of entitlement for what our forefathers accomplished a couple hundred years ago is NOT undeserved. we should get our piece of the pie, too. who cares if we don't work for it, its the 2000's! we're not cavemen….

Duane Lester on December 24th, 2008 at 1:15 am:

The last comment was deleted because it violated the Terms of Service, and because it was a personal attack. I really don't have any use for that and don't have to tolerate it.

CDM on December 24th, 2008 at 5:50 am:

Okay, this plan is extreme. I have a feeling that SUV subsidies should be lost, but this is hitting the public a bit hard. I have a feeling, however, that unless some punitive measure for using gas comes along, then there will be no incentive for companies to embrace environmentalism and alternative energies. I have a feeling that the price of coal should be raised as well. On an efficiency point, the less resources we use, the better. And we should find a way to use alternative energies (except ethanol, which isn't that efficient) that can easily be replenished.

Nuthr Stumbler on December 24th, 2008 at 6:13 am:

Um… couldn't make it all the way? No doubt, Andrew. Flat. Earth. Fundie. The last group of yours to storm Ted Stevens' tubes had a name… that ended with 'tard' I think.

Spence on December 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am:

Although I agree that gasoline prices at 4.50 would be far too high for the general public, I think that that price would be far more effective if it was slowly attained. If the population had far more of a warning in terms of increasing prices, they would be able to compensate by purchasing more eco-friendly materials. As of now, with prices having dropped so low, consumers of high-energy vehicles are feeling much more self-assured of their original possesion, leading to market-confidence in said vehicles. This is just increasing the problem of polution, and doing nothing to solve any problem that can arise.

james on December 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm:

The problem is not that of the price of gas being high but that the country has not built the infrastructure to deal with high fuel costs. Obama's comments were, of course, idiotic and not thought out. Gas could be $10.00 a gallon and not be a burden if public transportation was a priority. Imagine if you could get a transit pass for say $30.00 a month that could get you from your home to wherever you needed to get quickly and safely. You could dump your car payment, insurance and fuel costs. Figuring what it costs to own and upkeep a vehicle this would be truly a bargain.

eddy on December 25th, 2008 at 6:09 am:

slut<div style="font-size: 6px;">Sex Toys</div>

Whit on December 25th, 2008 at 11:34 am:

Yep.

RespectAll on December 26th, 2008 at 3:05 am:

Conspiracy? Look it up yourself. You obviously don't understand that there have to be some people that would like to own the world or control everything. Denying that would be absurd considering the fact that some people are extremely greedy and feel the need to prove themselves to their parents by owning more. It's all psychology. Just like you'd like to discount everything I say by calling it a conspiracy theory. Theory's can't be proved. Look at everything around you to see. Not all of the corporations are as bad as others, but that doesn't hold a person blameless for not doing anything about it. I'm not sure how ignorant you must be. Look up the definition of Corporation……

Probably Mike on December 26th, 2008 at 3:05 am:

*sniff* Does anybody else smell samefaggotry around here?

Jake on December 26th, 2008 at 5:03 am:

Yeah, I wonder who funded that questioning? Exxon Mobile ring a bell anyone?

Mike you douche on December 26th, 2008 at 5:05 am:

well said… Mike, get over yourself.

All this article is saying is obama should be judged on the energy policies proposed by the secretary of energy. By all means, make fun of the 'Change' bandwagon, you assume that all liberals agree with obama's policies and more stupidly you've assumed that all liberals would jump onto obama's campaign catch-phrase when it was no more than a slogan to sell his image. You missed that and decided the 'Change' slogan was a solid basis for your attack. You assume too much and you're ignorant and close minded.

people like you bring out the worst in me.
*sigh* sinking to your level and that

CDM on December 26th, 2008 at 6:35 am:

It may be true that we have a hard life, but we also live in the land of opportunities. I have a feeling though that not many people are thinking about change and actually supervising it. I think that we need to be able to change our leaders, at least the senators and reps, a bit more easily. I think that to solve many of our problems, we need a system of recall. (This refers to initiative, referendum, and recall)

Cyrus on December 26th, 2008 at 9:53 am:

Quote from the New York Times interview you listed:
"But Mr. Obama has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gas tax would be a 'mistake' because it would put 'additional burdens on American families right now.'"

Roughneck Bill on December 27th, 2008 at 6:01 am:

So corporations that make money are bad?
Don't corporations spend their earnings creating jobs, providing goods and services people want, funding research and developing better products and services? Sure, they pay out bonuses to the top managers, but don't those managers spend and invest that money back into the economy?
What good is money, except as means to buy things? Do these greedy, evil corporations just hoard their gold so they can amuse themselves by diving into piles of gold like some Scrooge McDuck cartoon?

Or, do they invest it where it will earn the highest rate of return?

I guess a lot folks paid attention during the study of Das Capital and the Marx and Engels Reader, but unfortunately fell asleep during science class.
Do you ever stop to think that the electricity that powers your Macs, electric trains, Greenpeace and PETA office buildings has to come from somewhere – and not just on windy and sunny days?
Does anyone travel to India or China?
Have any of you actually walked around in the third world?

Do you realize that more lifespans (Globally) are cut short by wood smoke (from home wood-fired cooking stoves in the 3rd world) than all the industrial pollution belched out by US and Canada combined?

The third world burns wood and garbage to cook, wash, and live. From scientific perspective, the heavier, less pure, and more carbon saturated the fuel, the more polluting it will be.

(Science. Burning wood and garbage causes the greatest pollution. Coal pollutes about 50% less than wood (per BTU). Oil results in around 35% less pollution than coal. Gasoline and Diesel 25% less than oil. Natural Gas 75% less polluting than gasoline! Which makes natural gas 98% less polluting than wood smoke!)

Yet through the "evil capitalism" in the US, we are able to concentrate on developing new technology, medicines, and gives hope to the world. I'm not saying we are perfect. But I the places I have been, I have yet to see "Utopia".
Can someone give us a better role model to follow? A role modeled society that allows people to succeed through their efforts? A society that is more fair and more successful? A better economic system that encourages common people to invent, innovate and take risks?
"Consumerism" sounds good, but what is it? I don't pretend to be an expert on economics, but is this Marxism?

If I was curious about economics, wouldn't it make more sense to learn from those who became economically successful? (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, JD Rockerfeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc.)

Or, does it make more sense to learn from disgruntled pundants, professors, or writers who have yet to create a single job or make a payroll?

Does it make more sense to develop economic and energy policies based on arbitrary concepts of "fairness" or build on past successes and improve where we can?

Penny on December 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm:

What takes up more room at 1atm: a liter of ice or a liter of water vapor?

Water is the most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. As water get warmer than 4 degrees Celsius, it expands. As water gets cooler than 4 degrees Celsius, it expands. Why don't YOU open a book sometime and stop being so critical?

Faranya on January 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pm:

Damn straight coal is a nightmare. It is dirty, inefficient stuff to be using.

There need to be more nuclear plants in place instead of relying on antiquities.

ronin on March 1st, 2009 at 2:41 am:

I also want these gas prices. Maybe if we Americans took more public transportation the gasoline would last a bit longer.

Duane Lester on March 1st, 2009 at 3:02 am:

What about the farmers who are barely making a profit? Should they "tractorpool" when planting or harvesting? Tell me how that would impact the price of food.

What about the people who don't have public transportation? There are areas of the country where there are miles between towns, with nothing but fields of corn or wheat. What about those people?

Could you look outside your world for a minute and think?

cjer on April 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pm:

Yeah! And go 100 miles @ 40mph when you'll have to recharge.

GottaLoveHypocrisy on May 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm:

There are nations in Europe AND Asia that received oil fields in Iraq (directly from Saddam) in exchange for their refusal to join the coalition…

People say that the U.S. is in this for oil…then why do we support Israel who has no oil and are against all the nations that have it? Why has there been an energy crisis in the U.S. if we are "conquering the M.E. and taking all their oil"?

Latest Reader Comments

Archives


What Next?	Other Posts Like This One
Comment On This Freep This Digg This Del.icio.us This