DOE chief: Obama Administration NOT working to lower gas prices

Melensdad · Feb 29, 2012

From left leaning Politico:

Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices

The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.

Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.

But Americans need relief now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) said — not high gasoline prices that could eventually push them to alternatives.
“I can’t look at motivations. I have to look at results. And under this administration the price of gasoline has doubled,” Nunnelee told Chu. . .

High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No"

THE FULL STORY => http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html#ixzz1npUAzT6E

And from YAHOO! News is this report: http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices

President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.

Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House . . .

. . . How the Obama administration reacts to the expected firestorm is open to question. Green energy is as part of its fundamental religion as is universal health care, another unpopular Obama policy. If it tries to bull ahead, the electorate will likely punish Obama and the Democrats. If it tries to backtrack, Obama looks weak and facilitating, and likely will still not appease gas strapped Americans experiencing price shock at the gas pump.

jimbo · Feb 29, 2012

It is the same old story. If your goal is to make something equal to something else, the only possible is to bring the good down, not the bad up, as this cannot be done. The only way windmills and corn can compete is if the price of fossil fuels is brought to their level, not the other way around.

IMO, that is what screwed up education. The goal of integration became equal outcome, not equal opportunity. Hence the mess that education has become. Same will happen with energy if we let it.

Melensdad · Mar 1, 2012

Seems to me that the failed "green energy" initiatives are like a religion to Obama.

He is willing to see people starve and destroy the economy just to get wind power and electric cars. Having high gas prices gives people more incentive to push for 'green energy' so its part of his plan to prevent drilling, part of his plan to keep efficient diesel off our streets, part of his plan to not push for natural gas. All those are fossil based.

300 H and H · Mar 1, 2012

Excuse me, but point of order.....

But the corn is not for energy independance. It is for cleaner exhaust imissions.....

Regards, Kirk

muleman · Mar 1, 2012

And screwing up small engines like my pressure washer. Have to tear the carb apart again. :hammer:

And the economy has killed the only real gasoline retailer up by the lake. Sure hope somebody takes it over and reopens it or the boaters will be screwed. I used to get 15 gallons and make it last for small engines and 2 cycle mix.

jimbo · Mar 1, 2012

Kirk, do you have anything to back that up? Other than the ADM farm journal and/or the International Greenie Monthly. Most of what I can find suggest that the purpose is to wean the country off fossil fuels.

If we were to open our own energy resources, i.e. oil and NG, we would could become self sufficient in a relatively short time. Ironically, the DOE was set up under Carter to do exactly that.

I can find no empirical data to support the notion that alcohol does much for the environment. I do know that 10 buck gasoline will do no good for the economy. I also know that corn can be eaten and fuel prices have more then doubled under the current administration and its energy policies.

Melensdad · Mar 1, 2012

It is my understanding that Kirk is correct.

At least in part. The ORIGINAL intent of Ethanol added to gasoline was as something to make the emissions cleaner.

HOWEVER, I believe that as they have bumped up the Ethanol to levels above 10% the original intent has been pushed by the wayside and E15 was an attempt (as is E85) to push us toward energy independence.

tiredretired · Mar 1, 2012

This should come as no surprise to anyone that takes even a passing interest in politics. This is the very reason The Obama Regime picked this guy to be his energy chief. I can see sound bites from this testimony on CPAC ads this summer. :yum:

Cowboy · Mar 1, 2012

TiredRetired said:
This should come as no surprise to anyone that takes even a passing interest in politics. This is the very reason The Obama Regime picked this guy to be his energy chief. I can see sound bites from this testimony on CPAC ads this summer.

The really sad part is they dont even mind flaunting it to our faces, the over 50% group really do beleive the government is here to help no matter WTF they do or say. :sad:

I'll never forget the look of trust on my dads face when the trusted family docter told him in fancy words that My mom had suffered a fatal massive coronary, and his question was " but she will be OK wont she" ? :sad:

He never even knew WTF the docter was saying untill Us kids had to explain it to him. :doh:

Sorry I have no clue where that came from.

tiredretired · Mar 1, 2012

Cowboy said:
The really sad part is they dont even mind flaunting it to our faces, the over 50% group really do beleive the government is here to help no matter WTF they do or say.

I'll never forget the look of trust on my dads face when the trusted family docter told him in fancy words that My mom had suffered a fatal massive coronary, and his question was " but she will be OK wont she" ?

He never even knew WTF the docter was saying untill Us kids had to explain it to him. Sorry I have no clue where that came from.

Good analogy Cowboy. Same experience with my mom when the Alzheimers diagnosis was confirmed. Dad had no idea, until my wife sat him down and explained. So sad.

The bottom line is if the sheeple in this country do not get their heads out of the sand and see how much damage is being done to this country, with thinking like this, than we are all doomed. Pure and simple.

There is nothing to replace oil currently as an aircraft fuel or as a fuel for most of our transportation. So what are we to do when prices continue to rise to an unsustainable level?

jimbo · Mar 1, 2012

TiredRetired said:
We are not addicted to oil, as oil is currently essential to our energy needs and much of our chemical industry. There is nothing to replace oil currently as an aircraft fuel or as a fuel for most of our transportation. There will be in the future, but we do not have that technology now. So what are we to do when prices continue to rise to an unsustainable level?

Seems to me that the answer to your question is fairly simple. The fastest way to cover our immediate energy needs, and those into the immediate future, is to utilize the energy resources now available. Those are oil, natural gas, and nuclear. All of these can be brought on line fairly quickly if the government backs off and lets American industry do its thing.

This does not mean that we should not be researching and examining other potential energy solutions against the day we run out of fossil fuels, if we ever do. But to shove alternate energy at us before its time is bad economics.

I would suggest that the present alternative energy proposals are not at all about energy independence, but about pacifying voting blocks.

tiredretired · Mar 1, 2012

jimbo said:
Seems to me that the answer to your question is fairly simple. The fastest way to cover our immediate energy needs, and those into the immediate future, is to utilize the energy resources now available. Those are oil, natural gas, and nuclear. All of these can be brought on line fairly quickly if the government backs off and lets American industry do its thing.

This does not mean that we should not be researching and examining other potential energy solutions against the day we run out of fossil fuels, if we ever do. But to shove alternate energy at us before its time is bad economics.

I would suggest that the present alternative energy proposals are not at all about energy independence, but about pacifying voting blocks.

You're preaching to the choir here Jimbo. Chu's testimony is as clear a truth as there ever was that currently the inmates are running the asylum. Until that changes, we are in a downward spiral into oblivion. This country just cannot sustain itself in it's present state. Watch the unemployment figures when they come out in a few days.

DOE chief: Obama Administration NOT working to lower gas prices

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

jimbo

Bronze Member

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

300 H and H

Bronze Member

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten

jimbo

Bronze Member

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

tiredretired

The Old Salt

Cowboy

Wait for it.

tiredretired

The Old Salt

jimbo

Bronze Member

tiredretired

The Old Salt