Obama 2008 talking about his Cap and trade plan- "energy prices would necessarily skyrocket."

Lay off the personal attacks, Alfred.

@Jason
If Obama dumped billions of stimulus dollars in alternative energy, I assume to spur the economy, doesn't he then also want high gas prices in order to make his stimulus look good? OR Was his investments in green energy with our tax dollars pity money because Solyndra was to big to fail?

There is no capitalism in an industry that can only survive with government money.

I think yours is the only intelligent comment on the article. Yes, if it costs too much people with brains like the heads of WM and UPS will change and adapt; much unlike the average motorist, who drives a vehicle using about five times more fuel than needed to carry nothing but the driver around town every day, then complains about the gigantic waste of fuel driving prices higher.

I still prefer living without a vehicle myself, though of course I'm still told every day that that is simply impossible. Maybe if we stopped using many times more gas than we really need out of lazyness and vanity then the drop in demand would lower the price a little?

@Jason
First, I find it odd that a man who wants us to expand our debt in order to fund teachers and social programs is suddenly concerned about your kids future.

Second, we have no alternative to oil. Wind, solar or algae will never meet our needs and in order to convert the country to them would mean returning our lifestyles back to just after Edison. While natural gas could work we don't have the infrastructure and who wants to have a compressed NG tank in their back seat. As I point out, clean energy is not the goal or we would have dumped those billion/trillions into producing a clean burning gasoline car rather then build windmills. I am not anti-alternative energy, I am against energy doesn't work.

Jason:

Manufacturing solar cells is a tremendously dirty process that can have just as much negative effect on our children and grandchildren as burning oil.

Yes, a company can get a patent on wind and solar power. Harry Reagan received US patent number 588177 for his solar cell back in 1897. Many more patents have been granted for refinements and improvements on both solar cells and wind powered generators since then.

Why aren't we pushing for the only alternative power source that is practical? Nuclear power can take the burden off of fossil fuels until solar and wind can get to the point where they can actually be practical for meeting a large percentage of our energy demands.

If I recall correctly, they have been drilling in the Gulf since long before GW Bush or Obama were in office...

@Charles
Obama opened the gulf for show. His administration has not allowed a any drilling on public land. He wants it both ways. He wants people to think he is pro drilling on one side both then never allow permits to companies that want to drill in order control the energy structure int he US.

If you recall the last presidential election, McCain's proposed energy policy was to build 30+ nuclear reactors in the next decade or so to help address our energy needs and to decrease our reliance on oil.

@ Cowdung, But is that where our thinking should stop? This isn't about sides. Its not about politics. Its about getting an edge on the rest of the world. New tech, new jobs, new corporations, less dependency on a commodity that there is an increasing demand for.

@Michael
"Edge on the rest of the world"? The rest of the world is using their natural resources and those that aren't (ie Europe) are floundering. We have no replacement. Oil still runs the world's economy. If we give that up in order to buy your premise we will be crushed by the economies running on fossil fuels. We need to stop throwing money at failed alternative energy, leave that money in the private sector and they will come up with a better solution.

Be crushed now or later, its your pick I guess. We can try to prepare for the future and find great success in that our we can hold on to this, stave off our current financial disaster until a later date when it will double down on its impact. So, oil it is, I guess.

Michael:

Of course the thinking shouldn't stop there and in reality, it doesn't. How can we 'get an edge on the rest of the world when they are way ahead of us in nuclear energy? They are in a much better position than we are in trying to develop the energy source for the future.

LOL.

Just LOL.

I don't know what to say...

"Hubbert's peak" can refer to the peaking of production of a particular area, which has now been observed for many fields and regions.

Hubbert's Peak was achieved in the continental US in the early 1970s. Oil production peaked at 10,200,000 barrels per day (1,620,000 m3/d). Since then, it has been in a gradual decline."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

"Critics attack Patch's content as "piffle," too boosterish, irrelevant, or amateurish. All of that may be true, but it's not the real problem."

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-26/tech/30047463_1_patch-aol-ceo-run-aol#ixzz1q454B3KA

Yeah.

I'm a Critic.

I use my cadillac pickup every day for work to create jobs and support welfare. Still want me to get rid of it?

The train was not high speed, don't know where you guys got that from.
The democrats claim the government is the answer for everything. Bush lowered gas prices in one speech by opening up off shore drilling in 2008. Then Obama came in and put an end to any new off shore wells.

Yeah buy a Korean made car so we do not have to use oil that is of the non-fat variety. To hell with American jobs too.
I think I am starting to understand why the XO Pipeline was killed.
If noone has a job, you have no objection to Socialism.

@Dirk
I drive a 2006 Toyota Sienna and a 1994 Toyota Camry. I can guarantee you that I get better per passenger gas mileage then you do.

Limiting the scope of government by repealing regulations is not as you say, "solving all your problems". You are attempting to use the words of the right against us; however, it make no sense. You can't play the big government card against me because I am asking the government to control itself.

"Your own actions and inactions", sure. Will the city of Greendale (which by the way has sidewalks) allow my to drill an exploratory oil well? $4 gas as I stated above has been a self fulfilling prophecy. The liberals have done all they can to limit successful sources of power (nuclear, oil, natural gas or coal) in favor of power sources that are just as intrusive and environment unfriendly as those above, but can't supply anywhere near the need. If 20 years ago we could have drilled more, $4 gas would not have happened and we would be less dependent on dictators for our oil. Wonder what the gas price is in Saudi Arabia? Oh, like $1.

Lastly, I noticed your entire post was one long attack. The train was a slow train, our society is not built to accept mass transit and as a free country we are allowed to buy the car we want. Your solution, is the destruction of freedom and forced transportation based on what you and your eco-friends decide. Odd, that is what got us to where we are currently.

J.B. - It must be Hoffa that has the Cadillac. I get you two mixed up. Your apparent protege, Steve, has one. Sorry about your non-American beaters.
Your conspiracy theories that "The liberals have done all they can to limit successful sources of power (nuclear, oil, natural gas or coal) " are astounding and exhibit paranoid delusions. I once implied, and it turned out wrongly, to my director in a previous job (this was one of the largest, fastest growing companies in the world) that there was a management conspiracy afoot, and it was affecting me. The reply, which I will always remember, was "and you think we are that smart and organized that we could pull something like that off?" It turns out they were far from that smart and organized. But thanks for the compliment for liberal intelligence/organizaton.
The other question is WHY would liberals want to go with "loser" energy technologies? You must agree they are not dumb. The resources/technologies you mention are all finite and harder to extract ( the easy Texas gusher days are way long gone) can tear up the land and water, and, except for nuclear, affect the atmosphere with green house gases, mercury, etc. (nuclear, if there is an accident, is catastropic).
Agreed that wind, water, sun, geothermal power, etc. can be intrusive, but are not finite, affect the land and water much less, and do not release gases and other pollution in operation.
The alternative to all of this is more conservation.

@Bren
What was it at when he left office?

By that measure, Obama hasn't left office yet.

Bren -
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Click on the 4 year info. One speech by Bush dropped the price almost over night.

Michael, I agree with you with a caveat: absolutely, the federal government should be the source of basic research but when it comes to the commercial viability of a technology the free market must decide who wins. When governments start making technology bets they lose. Just look at Japan in the 80s and the bad bets it made. Those bad bets caused it to miss the PC and internet era. It used to be that large corporations like RCA and IBM plowed $$$s into basic research. That isn't true anymore. The best basic research is coming out of universities and government agencies(and even the universities are for the most part funded by the government). So, let the government do the basic research. Allow corporations to license the technology and then let the market decide who wins. Then we won't end up with awful energy solutions like ethanol(sure, great idea, let's turn our food into fuel).

Obama made a horrible decision in funding the production of Solyndra(and let's be frank too there was an incredible amt of fraud there). Fund the basic research and perhaps even fund production technologies. But don't provide loan guarantees when you can't even be sure the company is viable.

There is some green technology(s) our there that will be our future power. No one can predict what those technologies will be. And please don't waste my tax $$$s on those gambles.

@Michael Schwister.... How do you define corporate welfare? In the case of the 'oil producing industry', taken as a whole, they make a profit and pay significant federal income taxes. The 'solar power industry',on the whole, looses money and pays no federal income taxes. Additionally, we give 'federal tax credits'(read:free cash money from the oil industry tax collections) to subsidize/induce the purchase of the 'solar product' that can not survive on its own economic merit.

@Michael
Your assumption is that we have the solution. The problem with government is they have decided wind and solar are the answer and are attempting to destroy oil/coal/natural gas. Why? As I state power. If they were truly interested in oil dependency or the environment they would offer the billion wasted on bankrupt alterative energy firms as a prize to the first company that can produce 'x'. Where 'x' is an engine that can produce power at the same capacity or better than oil and no pollution, while still allowing it to be mass produced and mass consumed. The liberals (like fad dieters) cling to the newest energy that will donate to their politicians and do nothing to actually verify its viability.

Instead, in 6 days we will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We are stealing money from the companies that could help us in order to fund companies that can't. I am against corporate welfare as well. Unfortunately it is the liberal tax system of high taxes and many loopholes that creates that.

@J.B. Schmidt....you ran out of ideas a long time ago. The insistence to use every last drop of fossil fuels is a fools errand. The energy producers could have come up with alternatives long ago. Carter pushed for CNG and was shut down. It would have meant all the investment that the energy industry invested in coal would have been lost. We still have the CNG option and probably would provide a transitional fuel until such time as the new energies could be online.

Without government direction to delve into the less obvious, industry will exploit resources until they no longer exist. History has proven that to be the case.

@Lyle... Carter pushed for PV solar, he even installed it on the roof of the White House. Today, 35 years later, solar is still only marginally viable(both in price and reliability) for limited applications, mostly in the 5 most southwestern(sunny) states. The post 2005 price relationship between Nat-gas and oil is the reason that it is viable today as a transportation fuel. No 'government directive' guided the development of the 'fracking process', to which we owe the lower price point of nat-gas.

@Jay Sykes...Carter wanted to convert to all coal fired power plants to CNG. He was pushing solar and oil sands also. But his main focus was CNG.

Why convert our coal fired plants to NG? The US has the largest reserves of coal on the planet.You may b*tch about the environmental implications of coal but it's the one natural resource we have plenty of and we're not going to war over it.

I would like to hear about one renewable energy source that competes economically with fossil fuels. Does it exist today? Nope. Solar, wind, hydrogen(which BTW is an energy transport media, not an energy source) is nowhere near the fossil fuels in affordability. Until that happens we will be dependent on fossil fuels. Artificially forcing oil to be as or more expensive than alternatives is simply idiotic.

@J.B. Schmidt...We already have natural gas pipelines and building more wouldn't present the kind of problem that the bituminous oil causes. We still have need for oil for the chemical industry but we won't be burning it to push vehicles around, heat homes or generate electricity. Let the rest of the world fight over the oil. Pushing for CNG will buy time for the private sector to come up with the next technology.

@Lyle
Then we have liberals pissed away billions on failing alternative energy sources?

I understand that we already have gas pipelines; however, to build an infrastructure like what we have for gasoline would require an extensive overhaul.

@J.B. Schmidt...Of course billions have been expended, but it's not only liberals but includes conservatives. The infrastructure for CNG would be less expensive than the oil pipelines.

@Lyle
You didn't answer my question. Why do we continue to spend billions on failed alternative energy?

I must correct your last statement. While both Democrats and Republicans have authorized alternative energy spending it is not a conservative republican doing it. It is usually a republican attempting to gain political power.

@J.B. Schmidt....Let me address one thing; the government has been in the business of picking winners and losers every since they have been awarding contracts and warrants. Defense and infrastructure contracts are a prime example. As far as energy is concerned, who do you think was the first recipients of contracts to build nuclear power reactors? It goes all the way through the government and industry. This is why "pork barrel" projects are such a problem.

During Carter I was involved in the development of tar sands in Colorado and Utah. The only reason that wasn't viable was the lack of water. It takes a tremendous amount of water to separate the oil from the sands or shale. This problem still persists. You have tried to simplify and reduce this down to suppositions that are not complete and doesn't completely addresses the problem.

Alternative energy technologies are still in process and requires a great amount of initial investment. You call much of it failed, but what is the base line and measure that you're comparing to? We could go through industry after industry where monies have been invested and eventually become viable. CNG remains our best alternative for now, but it isn't the final solution. If we followed your reasoning, neither the government nor industry would invest the time, effort and treasure to bring alternatives to fruition. This is a proper area for government since it benefits us all.

@Lyle
The awarding of a defense contract, while not completely without it political bias, is given to the company that proves it can produce what is needed based on a set of specific guidelines asked by the military. Infrastructure, until perverted by liberal feel good equality laws and a Doyle administration giving contracts to friends, is one where the the bid is given to the lowest bidder or bidder offering best product. Either way, they do not compare to a government giving money hand over fist to bankrupt companies.

If you wish to give money for innovation, then at least give it to companies that are offering innovation. As I stated above we would have accomplished 5x the innovation if we would have awarded the billions to a company that comes up with something truly usable. Not unlike your defense contracts, we ended up with stealth not because we sprinkled billions of dollars to failing airplane companies, but because the military said we will pay a company billions if they can make a plane that flies and disappears from radar. In return we had Skunk Works producing amazing flying machines for Lockheed.

Picking a winner because it is a winner is not the same as picking a winner because they donate heavily or it is the current anti-oil. Apple/IBM/Microsoft would not have produced what they did if the government would have been involved as they are involved in alternative energy. The private sector has always produced better then government.

@Mike
Options? If we had options we would not be forced to take the hybrid gas/ethanol mix that is forced on us. We wouldn't have billions in wasted tax dollars thrown at bankrupt alternative energy companies. They wouldn't ban incandescent light bulbs, forcing me to buy cfl bulbs that cost 3x as much.

I am not anti alternative energy, I am anti failed alternative energy. I am anti government involvement in choosing what portion of the energy sector gets preferential treatment. This is left vs right because the left believes in letting the government choose who should win. While the right takes a free market approach.