published Thursday, October 18th, 2012

Not really ‘all of the above’

In Tuesday’s second presidential debate, President Barack Obama touted his “all of the above” energy strategy — a proposal which, to hear him explain it, will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, save families and businesses money at the pump and position the United States as the global leader in clean energy.”

Sounds great, right? Almost too good to be true?

That’s because it is.

Obama’s “all of the above” energy scheme will actually pump billions of tax dollars into economically unjustifiable green energy schemes, attacks America’s coal industry, limit domestic energy exploration, and raises the cost of products and services through a series of mandates and taxes. Worst of all, Obama’s plan to tinker with fuel mileage regulations would actually kill thousands of Americans.

In order to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the president has pledged to increase the handouts and tax breaks available for renewable energy. Obama was apparently so pleased with the stimulus money spent subsidizing companies like Solyndra, that he believes billions of additional tax dollars should go towards wasteful and ineffective green boondoggles.

While Obama’s energy plan is busy subsidizing green energy, it damages traditional energy suppliers by slashing the number of acres available for oil-shale mining by more than 75 percent and calling for a $27 billion tax hike on oil and gas over the next decade.

One of the central tenets of Obama’s energy plan is to push out American coal production. Reducing the amount of coal available for power plants will substantially increase American’s electric bills. The federal government’s own studies estimate that recently adopted coal regulations pushed by Obama will cost American families $10 billion per year — and that’s only the beginning of higher electricity expenses if Obama has his way.

•••

In August, the Obama Administration invented a new set of fuel efficiency standards, forcing auto makers to produce cars and light trucks that get 54.5 mpg by 2025. The stricter standards will increase the price of a new car by about $3,000, according to federal estimates.

Not only would this fuel economy mandate cost drivers money, it would cost thousands of American lives.

Since the simplest way to improve a vehicle’s mileage is to reduce its weight, the new fuel efficiency standards will force drivers into “small, underpowered death traps,” according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

USA Today calculated that size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles required to meet current fuel efficiency standards resulted in more than 46,000 deaths. The Obama Administration's new fuel efficiency standards almost double the current standards. It’s horrifying to consider the increased number of deaths that will result if Obama has his way and the new standards are implemented.

•••

Obama’s assault on America’s energy producers and taxpayers is nothing new.

Despite pledging to work to extend the Keystone XL Pipeline, Obama rejected a permit to continue work on the project. The pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada, Montana and Oklahoma to refineries, distribution hubs and storage facilities, would expand America’s supply of affordable, available oil. It would also result it 130,000 jobs — including 20,000 union jobs — according to the Houston Chronicle, while posing little environmental risk.

Additionally, the Obama Administration continues to resist efforts to open new areas to responsible oil exploration and issues fewer drilling permits than the historical average.

If Obama truly cared about addressing the future of America’s energy needs, his “all of the above” energy plan would look a lot different. Actually, it would look more like Mitt Romney’s. The challenger’s energy plan opens up more federal land for energy production, ends subsidies for windmills and other green energy sources, speeds up the permitting process for drilling and encourages finishing the Keystone XL Pipeline.

So, in the end, does President Obama’s energy scheme mean fewer available fuel sources, more taxpayer subsidies to green energy companies, more dangerous vehicles, more regulations on successful energy providers or an even higher national debt? The answer, appropriately, is “all of the above.” 

22
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

The primary benefit of the Keystone pipeline will be to access the Gulf of Mexico for shipping oil around the world. That would almost immediately move the price of a barrel of oil up to the Brent/world price, which is about 15% higher than what America now pays.

Be careful what you wish for!

North American natural gas prices are now around $3 while world prices are around $14. Many American gas producers are near bankruptcy due to over-drilling. Opening up more drilling for gas now would be counter-productive.

Be gareful what you ask for!

Most of the world's remaining untapped oil fields are expensive to access and will force the price of oil ever higher. The era of cheap oil is over and only conservation and increases in efficiency can even hope to slow price increases.

If Americans will be less safe in smaller, more efficient cars, we may not have to wait too many more years until we will be much safer in public transportation because that is where we are headed, like it or not. Suburban sprall has peaked and we are going to struggle to live close to work and necessities.

Large personal automobiles are going the way of the Awk, we just don't believe it yet. Efficiency is our best hope.

Green energy is too expensive just as early computers were too expensive. Do we turn our backs on the energy sources of the future?

And importantly, do we ignore the now overwhelming body of evidence that expanding fossil fuel usage is destabilizing the ecological balance of the planet? Is life on this planet all about GDP? Are we collectively capable of driving over the cliff with no higher human purpose or responsibility than living for the moment?

I hope we are better than that.

October 18, 2012 at 2:10 a.m.
Livn4life said...

NU you are the everything expert. Why not head up to Washington yourself? You should be able to turn everything around.

October 18, 2012 at 6:25 a.m.
joneses said...

If Hussein Obama wants lower gas prices then why have they doubled in price since he moved into the White House? Hmmmm.

October 18, 2012 at 8:54 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

joneses said... If Hussein Obama wants lower gas prices then why have they doubled in price since he moved into the White House? Hmmmm.

Because our President is not a dictator or a king. You keep wanting to turn him into one, but you have failed. You keep thinking we live in a country where you get to tell people what to do. You seem to not realize fuel is a commodity traded that will reflect the price of those trading. Why are you not asking wall street why they are being so greedy? Or how about Fox News? The same people that own the most shares of Fox News also control much of the price of oil. Can you not get you head out of your azz long enough to have a civil comment in a conversation about problems we face without bowing down to your king?

October 18, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
conservative said...

Obamination's "calling for a $27 billion tax hike on oil and gas over the next decade" specifically means the tax will be passed on to the consumer at the pump. This is a tax hike on the poor who are already suffering from high gas prices due to the already high federal, state, and local taxes added to gas and diesel.

Makes you wonder how his sheep can be so dumb.

October 18, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
stosh said...

JustOneWoman said...Because our President is not a dictator or a king.

Yet Obama said in 2008 "For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis." He went on to say high gas prices were a clear sign of "Washington's failure to lead on energy," which was "turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans."

Now high gas prices are attributable to Fox News??? Jeez.

October 18, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
nucanuck said...

L4l,

The power of money has so corrupted the American political process that we have become ungovernable. Anyone going to Washington to solve problems will either quit in disgust or play the money game. Problems aren't being solved there. Plus, I am an old man.

BTW, do you have any thoughts on the oil editorial that you would like to share?

October 18, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

conservative said... Makes you wonder how his sheep can be so dumb.

Makes me wonder why you keep making this guy into your shepard. Just how high of a fetish do you guys have for our President? This one man obcession seems to keep you guys from discussing real problems with real comments.

Rmoney has a long history of making money for himself by putting others out of work. He is continuing that process right now at Sensata. And you think this is the guy to turn our country around? Well if moving jobs to China will turn this country around, a vote for Rmoney will do it. Fools

October 18, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

nucanuck said... The primary benefit of the Keystone pipeline will be to access the Gulf of Mexico for shipping oil around the world. That would almost immediately move the price of a barrel of oil up to the Brent/world price, which is about 15% higher than what America now pays.

Be careful what you wish for!

Very good post. And it is so true. My fear is that we will all get exactly what these fools wished for.

October 18, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
conservative said...

"The federal government’s own studies estimate that recently adopted coal regulations pushed by Obama will cost American families $10 billion per year — and that’s only the beginning of higher electricity expenses if Obama has his way."

Higher electricity bills for the already poor.

Makes you wonder how Obamination's sheep can be so dumb.

October 18, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.
stosh said...

Sensata plant closes, resulting in 170 lost jobs (btw, Obama has blind trust money invested in Sensata like Romney). Meanwhile, 1200 coal mining jobs lost in one company due to Obama's energy strategy:

http://www.timesnews.net/article/9051790/bristol-va-based-alpha-natural-resources-closes-mines-cuts-1200-workers

October 18, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
conservative said...

"Obama’s “all of the above” energy scheme will actually pump billions of tax dollars into economically unjustifiable green energy schemes,"

Better:

Obama’s “all of the above” energy scheme will actually pump billions of tax dollars into proven economically unjustifiable green energy schemes,

Makes you wonder how Obamination's sheep can be so dumb.

October 18, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
rolando said...

justawoman: "Because our President is not a dictator or a king."

It's not for his lack of trying...all he needs is another 4 years to finish us off.

October 18, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
conservative said...

Rolando...

"It's not for his lack of trying...all he needs is another 4 years to finish us off."

Better :

It's not for his and his sheep's lack of trying...all they need is another 4 years to finish us off.

October 18, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Low carbon goods and services are the way of the future. How we deal with that reality will go a long way to determine America's future.

October 18, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
conservative said...

"One of the central tenets of Obama’s energy plan is to push out American coal production. Reducing the amount of coal available for power plants will substantially increase American’s electric bills."

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to remind Americans that Obamination said "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." -- Barack Obama, January 17, 2008.

Makes you wonder how Obamination's sheep can be so dumb.

October 18, 2012 at 11:47 a.m.
tipper said...

Republicans can only make sense on the current energy policy when then eliminate the $4 billion in corporate welfare to the oil industry. The only reason green technology is lagging is because the fosil fuel industries are so entrenched in their own wealth and power and totally lack any vision for the future of the nation's energy technology. It's still the old adage that money talks and bs walks. Romney's carping about less oil drilling and mining on federal lands forgets the fact that federal lands belong to all of the people. The choice on how it is used is not that of the fosil fuel industry alone. Conservative and other "experts" on this blog love to insult people who disagree with them by calling them "sheep." The real bucks and ewes are those who cling to energy policies that support industries in the twilight of their existence that are detrimental to the country's environment, health, and ecomomic well-being. A good example is that black lung disease has actually increased 40% since the 1970s due to different mining practices and a relaxing of regulatory oversight on mine owners. Interstingly, I have asked the coal energy people to send me a piece of "clean coal" four times even if I paid for the shipping. I have yet to receive one. What a bogus claim! If we continue to be manipulated by these indsutries, we pay the price in many ways.

October 18, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.
conservative said...

Wouldn't it just be wonderful if Liberals could actually get and pay for all the costs of wind and solar power without the subsidies of other people's money? And how much better also if they had to depend solely on that costly wind and solar without any coal, or gas or nuclear generated electricity as a backup, when the wind didn't blow and the sun didn't shine.

October 18, 2012 at 5:16 p.m.
tipper said...

No problem. I'd be glad to give the $4 billion in subsidies to wind, solar, bio-fuels instead of oil commpanies that rake in $32 billion each quarter. And if the fossil fuel industries want to assist in backing up alternative fuel initiatives or even get involved in them themselves while they are in their beginning stages, I'm all for it. But we all know that will never happen as long as oil, gas, and coal use some of their profits to to buy legistors to thwart and stall every move into a broader energy plan. They aren't even smart enough to diversify. They would rather stick with an old combustion engine that in some cases gets only 8-10 mpg more than it did 50 years ago. How backwards.

October 18, 2012 at 5:39 p.m.
conservative said...

Now imagine some of the advantages of Liberals paying the full cost of solar and wind generated electricity without the backups of coal, gas and nuclear power and the subsidies of other people's money :

Liberals would be easily identified because their homes would be dark at night. You could then instruct your children to the error of their ways.

Some Liberals, maybe even many, would renounce such nonsense after a few days without electricity at night and portions of the day.

Some Liberals, maybe even many, would abandon the Demoncrats and adopt some Conservative values.

October 18, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.
Leaf said...

Egads. I think I'll just address one of these claims. The assumption that pushing fuel economy standards higher will lead to decreased safety is just not true.

Modern cars are more fuel efficient, more powerful, and safer than cars from just a few years ago. Technology marches on. There is no reason to believe that you can only have one or the other. Statistically speaking, family sedans are the safest cars on the road and they are lighter than large trucks and SUVs. So there goes the "weight = safety" argument.

October 19, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
joneses said...

You liberals want more of this? Why?

Hussein Obama's complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies: Evergreen Solar ($24 million) SpectraWatt ($500,000) Solyndra ($535 million) Beacon Power ($69 million) AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million) Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.5 billion) First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million) EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million) Amonix ($5.9 million) National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million) Fisker Automotive ($528 million) Abound Solar ($374 million) A123 Systems ($279 million) Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million) Johnson Controls ($299 million) Schneider Electric ($86 million) Brightsource ($1.6 billion) ECOtality ($126.2 million) Raser Technologies ($33 million) Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million) Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million) Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million) Range Fuels ($80 million) Thompson River Power ($6.4 million) Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million) LSP Energy ($2.1 billion) UniSolar ($100 million) Azure Dynamics ($120 million) GreenVolts ($500,000) Vestas ($50 million) LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million) Nordic Windpower ($16 million) Navistar ($10 million) Satcon ($3 million) Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

October 20, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.