Friday, June 18, 2010

WTF?!?! Will 2012 be too late?

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."

AFP/Getty Images
Obama: Using Gulf crisis to push unpopular cap-and-trade bill.
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.

Read more:

***$7 per gallon gas will cost millions of jobs. Independent truckers and farmers will be hit so hard by this that many will fold overnight. Weren't people (especially liberals) up in arms and blaming Bush when gas was $4+ a gallon?
The bleading hearts were accusing "Bush and his cronies" of "profiting off the blood and sweat and tears of the American people". It was sadly the turning point for his administration. The lefties accuse Bush of ruining the economy but we had record years of prosperity under George Bush until Nazi Pelosi and the democrats took control of congess.

Not only should people who own a car or truck be frightened. How about everyone that eats!! Everything we eat relies on tractors, trucks, etc. Two of the biggest variable costs in food production are employees and energy.


  1. Frightening. Seriously frightening. I think we'd all better drop to our knees in prayer and then stand up shouting to be heard above the media.

  2. Oh my gosh...I REALLY hope this is not going to happen!

  3. That is WAY too expensive. If he does that, AHHHHH

  4. That would be an absolute nightmare. Imagine how much of a family's (already slim) income would be eaten up by just trying to get to work to earn said (slim) income?

    What a mess. Literally.

  5. Yeah. I skimmed over this ONLY because the minute I read "$7 a gallon" I wanted to stick my head under my pillow and cry.

    The economy will go down the tubes. No one will be able to afford to leave the house, let alone buy ANYTHING or even get to work.

    Not a good solution.

  6. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in composing this article. I am going for the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your fanciful writing abilities has prompted me to start my own blog now. Actually the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a fine example of it.
    Bags fashions