Obamao's solution to Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gasoline

[calfoxwc]

$7-a-gallon gas?

 

The folly of O's oil-spill 'fix'

 

By BEN LIEBERMAN

 

Last Updated: 4:22 AM, June 18, 2010

 

Posted: 12:02 AM, June 18, 2010

 

President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas. That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.

 

So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?

 

Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak.

 

The answer can be found in Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now-famous words, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

 

That sure was true of global-warming policy, and especially the cap-and-trade bill. Many observers thought the measure, introduced last year in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), was dead: The American people didn't seem to think that the so-called global-warming crisis justified a price-hiking, job-killing, economy-crushing redesign of our energy supply amid a fragile recovery. Passing another major piece of legislation, one every bit as unpopular as ObamaCare, appeared unlikely in an election year.

 

So Obama and congressional proponents of cap-and-trade spent several months rebranding it -- downplaying the global-warming rationale and claiming that it was really a jobs bill (the so-called green jobs were supposed to spring from the new clean-energy economy) and an energy-independence bill (that will somehow stick it to OPEC).

 

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) even reportedly declined to introduce their new cap-and-trade proposal in the Senate on Earth Day, because they wanted to de-emphasize the global-warming message. Instead, Kerry called the American Power Act "a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence."

 

But the new marketing strategy wasn't working. Few believe the green-jobs hype -- with good reason. In Spain, for example, green jobs have been an expensive bust, with each position created requiring, on average, $774,000 in government subsidies. And the logic of getting us off oil imports via a unilateral measure that punishes American coal, oil and natural gas never made any sense at all.

 

Now the president is repackaging cap-and-trade -- again -- as a long-term solution to the oil spill. But it's the same old agenda, a huge energy tax that will raise the cost of gasoline and electricity high enough so that we're forced to use less.

 

The logic linking cap-and-trade to the spill in the Gulf should frighten anyone who owns a car or truck. Such measures force up the price at the pump -- Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs thinks it "may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020" to meet Obama's stated goal of reducing emissions 14 percent from the transportation sector.

 

Of course, doing so would reduce gasoline use and also raise market share for hugely expensive alternative fuels and vehicles that could never compete otherwise. Less gasoline demand means less need for drilling and thus a slightly reduced chance of a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon spill -- but only slightly. Oil will still be a vital part of America's energy mix.

 

Oil-spill risks should be addressed directly -- such as finding out why the leak occurred and requiring new preventive measures or preparing an improved cleanup plan for the next incident. Cap-and-trade is no fix and would cause trillions of dollars in collateral economic damage along the way.

 

Emanuel was wrong. The administration shouldn't view each crisis -- including the oil spill -- as an opportunity to be exploited, but as a problem to be addressed. And America can't afford $7-a-gallon gas.

 

Ben Lieberman is senior anal yst of energy and environmental policy in The Heritage Founda tion's Roe Institute.

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedc...K#ixzz0rDCIIbGg

[Pumpkin Eater]

Why do these idiots that want expensive gasoline fail to realize the repercussions such a high price will have on everyone's lives? Farmers will either have to raise prices to pay for gas or set aside some of their land to produce biofuels which means fewer crops to market which means higher prices. My Electric bill is still 30% sourced from oil burning power plants.

[Mr. T]

This like adding new laws because soccer moms are offended.

 

If you thought $5 per gallon gasoline didn't have anything to do with driving us into the current recession, just wait until we see $7 dollars per gallon.

 

Can you imagine the inflation?

 

 

Is this the deal Obamao struck with BP so they could recoup their costs?

 

Is it constitutionaly legal for Obamao to strike a deal/treaty with a corporation without it going through congress?

[Kosar_For_President]

I can just hear the Obama arguments already, "He never had a chance".......

[Chicopee John]

>>America can't afford $7-a-gallon gas. >>

 

I doubt this will happen. Just a scare article, probably. Maybe I'm naive.

 

$7 per gallon outlined as paying for the Gulf mess and an energy bill will, I'm afraid, get some people seriously hurt - politically and physically.

[VaporTrail]

7 seems kinda crazy. However, I'd say that if this is really going to happen and it's a not just a fear mongering article, then Obama has balls. For a change in oil consumption to actually occur and shit to get done, it needs to be necessary. If this is what Obama is doing, it's a huge gamble, but it could be the kick in the ass necessary to get us off of fossil fuels, and enough money put into R&D of alternatives. On the other hand, this could amount to nothing and f*ck up everything. Or it could be complete bullshit.

[smalls1129]

7 seems kinda crazy. However, I'd say that if this is really going to happen and it's a not just a fear mongering article, then Obama has balls. For a change in oil consumption to actually occur and shit to get done, it needs to be necessary. If this is what Obama is doing, it's a huge gamble, but it could be the kick in the ass necessary to get us off of fossil fuels, and enough money put into R&D of alternatives. On the other hand, this could amount to nothing and f*ck up everything. Or it could be complete bullshit.

 

 

In the midst of this economy...how could this help at all. All $7 gas would do is force people to change jobs or not eat. It adds up extremely quick. Example: About a year before gas went up to $4 I was working in Parma Heights for 10/hr. I live in Elyria, it was kind of a far drive (about 45 depending on if I took the turnpike) but @around $2/gallon it wasn't that much to deal with. By time it got up to $4 I had to quit. It was no longer close to worth it b/c of the extra gas money per week. My wife and I figured it out; by time we took gas money and taxes (neither of which is my bosses fault) I was making between 3-4/hr. Now take that to $7 and I would have been loosing money going to work. You can try to 'ween' us off all you want...until there is a fuel source that is not only 'plentiful' but also has machines to run on it all you're going to do is drive the country even further into the ground.

[VaporTrail]

I kind of agree with you, smalls. I don't think that forcing everyone to have jobs close to home would be good for the economy. Whether or not this article pans out as real (i have my doubts), the switch should only come about when there's a necessity. I mean, I think in the long run, it'd be better, even if it xxxxed the economy, but a very horrible situation is the only way (realistically) that we'd ever ween ourselves off of it. It'd force the scientific community to come up with an alternative. Unfortunately, I don't think artificial inflation would solve more long-term problems than it creates.

[smalls1129]

I kind of agree with you, smalls. I don't think that forcing everyone to have jobs close to home would be good for the economy. Whether or not this article pans out as real (i have my doubts), the switch should only come about when there's a necessity. I mean, I think in the long run, it'd be better, even if it xxxxed the economy, but a very horrible situation is the only way (realistically) that we'd ever ween ourselves off of it. It'd force the scientific community to come up with an alternative. Unfortunately, I don't think artificial inflation would solve more long-term problems than it creates.

 

 

But the only way to legitimately pull off what you're talking about is if it is true; we're actually out of oil. If the US pulled this and there wasn't an equal artificial rise in other countries then all hell would break loose. I mean what this would lead to is in no way going to be peaceful to begin with. But you add the fact that there would be seriously pissed off people with someone to accurately blame in their cross hairs...not pretty. That is why I said (well hinted) that this couldn't be an effective cause and effect policy decision. IE. price out of competition to bring about intense research and development. The reason is quite simple b/c you would have priced the working class out of a living with no (minimum) alternative means.

[calfoxwc]

Obamao SAID that energy prices will NECESSARILY SKYROCKET.

 

But, the skyrocketing gas prices, etc, will just skyrocket inflation.

 

Farmers, truckers, you name it mfg...

 

there is no "kick in the pants" that guarantees success of

 

new, affordable alternate fuels.

 

That is kinda like rolling two dice to see if you jump off a cliff or not.

 

Unless the real motive is to savage our American standard of living to manipulate

 

eh... attempt to manipulate, Americans against capitialism and for ... socialism.

 

Or something. It makes no sense to me.