Yesterday, president Obama announced emission standards which he said would raise the cost of automobiles by $1300.
While the new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil, they are expected to cost consumers an extra 1,300 US dollars per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Mr Obama said the fuel cost savings would offset the higher price of vehicles in three years.
His remarkable comment caught my attention, because one of the primary purposes of Obama’s “cap and trade” plan is to massively raise the cost of fuel. There aren’t going to be any fuel cost savings. In fact, Mr. Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle last year that he actually intends to bankrupt coal fired power plants using cap and trade:
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
Two automobile companies are already going bankrupt, so I think we should take Mr. Obama’s words seriously.
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes.
WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
Audacity indeed. The assumption seems to be that no one remembers what was said last week.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OT or maybe not. 😀
DaveE.
Quiz for John Egan,
When Obama said :
That meant :
1. He intends to put more money in Americans pockets to fight the recession.
2. He intends to take more money from Americans pockets and give it to the government.
3. He intends to have no influence on the cost of fuel, and instead intends to let the free market set the price.
Guest post by Stephen Goddard!?!? What the? Hey, why don’t _I_ ever get to write a guest post? This is totally unfair!!!
Oh, it’s because I don’t have anything substantial to add to the conversation? Ok, you make a pretty good point. You win this round, WUWT.
Thomas J Arnold
You are presumably aware of Agenda 21 and its tie in to the Kyoto protocol and the IPCC? Also I presume you are aware of the UN’s Sage agenda which provides propaganda to UK schools?
The latest propaganda for 4 year old upwards are several plays about penguins and polar bears suffering because man has melted the ice and caised all sorts of other environmental problems. Chilling stuff.
Tonyb
EM Smith.
Thanks for your comments.
I saw the reference by JamesP to your article in chiefio
Did you ever see my article on William Connelly-the politically motivated gatekeeper of the climate change pages of Wikipedia? Or the reference from them that Wikepedia doesnt have to print the truth just material that is ‘verfiable?’
Incidentally, do you intend to publish an easy to read summary on all that is wrong with GISS? They are great articles but difficult to reference to people who do not know the background or only want a three minute read.
Best regards
Tonyb
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The Federal Reserve’s latest forecasts for the U.S. economy are gloomier than the ones released three months earlier, with an expectation for higher unemployment and a steeper drop in economic activity.
I’d get gloomy with the economic forecast too what with this Audacious Chain & Trash the Economy policy over a trace gas about to get salvoed onto the base of the US.
That’s like stopping at the gas station, filling up the tank (stimulus) then tossing a match into the tank.
I guess the US Govt is really dumb enough to allow ‘special interests’ to grind it to a complete standstill. Sidelined.
Every polyscience agenda has to have it’s goal, my guess is that’s what this is all about.
E.M.Smith (04:23:06)
“Fuel costs are IRRELEVANT compared to all the other parts of the total cost of ownership and will stay so even if doubled and doubled again. Now, I don’t have a car payment, but I do see them from time to time. Several hundred dollars a month. Vastly more than the fuel bill… Why would I want that?”
E.M. Smith – Thank you for your many lively and very informative posts!
I wanted to say something about your comment above. I’ve always chuckled when people complain loudly about gasoline prices, which – say – add $20 every 1.5 – 2 weeks to their fuel bill, but then think nothing of paying $20 to get a pizza every couple of days, or $75- $100 for their cable bill. The natural gas company could raise their gas bill by $50 a month and they probably would just yawn.
Do you remember last summer when oil was at $130/bbl and gasoline was $4.00/gal? Do you recall what our politicians did to help us? I remember hearings in Washington DC where executives from the oil industry were grilled by our representatives as to why THEY had driven up oil prices!? I remember the MSM railing about the obscene profits these oil companies were making. I remember my representative mailing me a letter saying that Congress was *** suing OPEC *** on my behalf in order to bring down oil prices!! (I still wonder how that went). Now, of course, almost one year later, they want to force oil prices (and energy prices in general) BACK UP via cap-and-trade and inevitable fuel-oriented taxes, the reason now being that we must “save the environment”! So – to summarize, last year oil prices HIGH (from market forces) = BAD; this year, oil prices HIGH (from taxation) = GOOD.
Yes – it’s going to be a long, hot summer (politically speaking)…
jon (09:30:34) :
jon,
There is an estimated 800 billion to 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the oil shale deposits of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract this oil safely, economically, and in an environmentally prudent fashion is already here, or very close to being here.
The US currently uses 20 million barrels of oil per day. 800 billion barrels would meet that consumption for over a century.
The government will not grant the access to these resources because of the current administration’s view that such are ‘uneconomical’ or are a threat to the world’s health because of concerns regarding global warming.
If the oil shale is uneconomical, the oil companies will not develop them. And when has the government been concerned about uneconomical processes? And as anyone who frequents this blog site knows, the evidence for CO2 causing global warming is very weak.
We will just have to ride out the current nonsense as the extremism runs its course. In just a few years, higher energy bills or dawning common sense will put an end to policies being put together by the current crop of politicians and their allies such as Gore and Hansen.
That meant :
1. He intends to put more money in Americans pockets to fight the recession.
2. He intends to take more money from Americans pockets and give it to the government.
3. He intends to have no influence on the cost of fuel, and instead intends to let the free market set the price.
equals Chavez?
Steven Goddard (17:53:31) :
Thanks for the excellent explanation of how the marketplace was solving the problem. GM was already retooling for fuel efficient cars, and if Obama’s primary goal was to help them – he would have used the $20 billion to purchase cars, rather than majority ownership in the company. Had he done that, some 40,000 GM franchise employees would not have lost their jobs last week.
Well, not exactly. The marketplace was solving the problem by sending GM and Chrysler into oblivion.
E.M.Smith (01:34:03) :
The oil price today is $61 because the dollar is tanking against all major currencies.
Well, not exactly. The oil price was $147 in July 2008 when $2 = £1.
Yesterday the oil price was $61 yet the dollar now stands 21% higher at $1.57 = £1.
I think that many, if not most, of us here understand that the AGW/CC claims are not about climate, or even science. As Roy Spencer explained in his book “Climate Confusion”, it’s really about opposing world-views; different groups of people having different ideas about the way they think the world should be.
Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are just using AGW/CC as an excuse for imposing their world-view upon America. It is very similar to Bush’s claim of WMD’s in Iraq being used as an excuse to depose Saddam Hussein.
The fight is not over yet. I think Cap-and-Trade stands little chance of passing. I think that when the smoke clears, AGW/CC will become Obama’s legacy as his “WMD claim”.
Bush blamed the CIA for providing him with bad information. I wonder who Obama will blame? Gore?
Jack Simmons (06:00:19)
There is an estimated 800 billion to 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the oil shale deposits of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract this oil safely, economically, and in an environmentally prudent fashion is already here, or very close to being here.
Jack … are you aware of the environmental mess that has resulted from the mining of shale oil in Alberta? In addition, the extraction of oil from shale is energy intensive (expensive) which has resulted in thousands of layoffs in Alberta over the last year due to the drop in oil prices. Surely, it makes more sense to slow down the rate at which we are using our finite fuel resources i.e. greater fuel efficiency with cars etc.
DaveE (04:44:29) :
Obama Man Can
Thanks for the Link. Had me rolling on the floor
jon (04:43:14) said:
So what was the Iraq war all about if oil is so plentiful … don’t tell me weapons of mass destruction … was it worth all those deaths??? The article you posted admits that supplies will be dwindling in 100 years time so where is all the oil going to come from then for our future generations! These resources are finite are they not?
(a) Iraq emphatically wasn’t about oil. If Americans were ONE TENTH the Imperialists that the left assumes, XOM would now OWN say 80% of Iraqi production. As it is, the Iraq government(s) (including the Kurdish authority) own the stuff, and they are doing the expected mediocre job of returning production to pre-embargo levels.
(b) The “geo-political” view from Texas about the cause of the Iraq war was uncomplicated, straight-forward (like most things here) and probably always the most accurate:
Saddam tried to kill GWB’s daddy.
“Intelligence” on WMDs was all the pretext required.
Larger enterprises have been started on smaller pretexts; see Sarajevo & Ferdinand.
(c) “Finite” is indeed correct. However, without some NUMBERS (I said NUMBERS), “finite” doesn’t mean squat (although it does make the innumerate Left feel good about themselves for some reason). Have yourself a green tea and research these topics, and revert with some NUMBERS:
First, the tight shale gas now being recovered in huge quantities in the US (google Barnett, Haynesville, Marcellus shales to start) has been known to be there for decades, but didn’t count towards proven reserves because it was not economically recoverable. Directional drilling and staged fracturing changed that practically overnight (within the last 5-10 years). Now we are awash in nat gas, and folks are stacking rigs because the price is so low. The CEO of Chesapeake says the Haynesville field in North Louiisiana and East Texas is likely the largest gas field EVER “discovered”.
Second, research “oil in place”. A GREAT oilfield will give up say 40-50% of the oil in place through primary and secondary recovery (typically waterflood).
Most fields give up less. Tertiary recovery is in its infancy (google Chevron surfactants or SAG production), but today only adds another 10-15% recovery. Consequently there is HUGE amounts of already discovered oil sitting there (roughly equivalent to what has already been produced). Previously, it was cheaper to drill a new hole than to employ tertiary methods in an existing field. If we have free markets in oil (doubtful in the US, but possible in say Brazil), the market will drive tertiary.
Finally, ALL of the new large oil discoveries in Brazil (which are HUGE) are so-called sub-salt or pre-salt formations which lie below overlying sheets of salt deposits. We couldn’t even SEE these on seismic ~10-15 years ago. There are significant sub-salt fields in the Eastern GOM, and some folks believe similar formations lie off the US east coast (although since we can’t drill there, nobody’s gonna pay for seismic studies).
The short version: “finite resources” is a literally true but entirely useless phrase. I myself find it hard to believe, but technology has indeed kept known reserves ahead of production for my entire lifetime, and is likely (see above) to keep doing it.
The ONLY question that policy makers should be asking is “what’s the best guess about the cost of a marginal barrel of oil (in constant currency) for the next 100 years?
There ARE folks who know the answer to this question (AND who truly understand the impact of the technology) but the answer is considered proprietary as it is owned by the likes of XOM and considered key to their survival going forward.
I guaranteee that it would shock you, and I quarantee that government and academia don’t have a clue.
If YOU want a clue to the answer, take a look at how much XOM is investing in “alternative” energy.
Coal companies should be bankrupted. Coal burning plants should be closed. Old cars should be taken off the road and replaced with new, electric ones. You know what bothers me about “scientific” conservatives? They think because they can use a calculator with a cosine function button they know all about human nature. Old technologies are replaced by new ones. Unlimited growth is impossible. Less efficient ways of doing things must be replaced by more efficient ways (i.e. coal plants closed and replaced by something else), or else eventually our current population levels will be unsustainable. And it’s better to do it now than wait until there is a crisis. ~snip~
I saw on Kudlow that for every 1 Green job creates, 4 carbon jobs will be eliminated. Go Obama
Everyone step and do their part! Turn off your lights, shut down your furnance, shut off the water and park your car!
Obama man can!
Zach B,
Take an aspirin and lie down.
I’m glad to see this idiot, Obama, has no idea how food gets to his table. Just who pray tell does he think is going to foot the bill for planting, harvesting, fertilizing, and shipping that food from Montana, Nebraska, Idaho and Wyoming, among others to Washington DC?
He is obviously an educated idiot. God save the USA!
Zach B (08:04:28) :
“Coal companies should be bankrupted. Coal burning plants should be closed.”
Replaced by what, pray tell? There is a reason solar and wind only total about 2% of energy consumption, and are subsidized to boot. Each unit of energy is much, much more expensive to produce, even after decades of govt-funded research and trial and error. Especially when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.
Renewables are not ready for prime-time.
So killing off proven, reliable sources of energy generation in the meantime is a sure-fire recipe for, in your words, rendering population levels unsustainable. And much, much sooner, I might add.
Guarding civil liberties and democracy is a never ending battle.
In the end a Nation becomes the Government that it deserves!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/americans-largely-silent-as-their-nation-is-systematically-destroyed/
The ideological devotion of AGWers is beginning to remind me of what led to the mindless destruction wrought by the Cultural Revolution in China.
btw, are there a lot of AGW engineers in the world? Wouldn’t think so……
House speed reader at the ready for climate bill
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278191732237461.html
Barton says bring it on.
For those who need a good laugh, I humbly submit this link…
http://patriotroom.com/article/the-2012-pelosi-gtxi-ss-rt-sport-edition#comments
Lord knows I do. Enjoy.
Let’s say there’s a hundred years worth of oil at the present rate of consumption. If that rate is cut to a half, the oil will last two hundred years. If it’s cut to a tenth, it will last a thousand years. Big deal! A thousand and one years from now people won’t have any oil to burn because people that lived earlier used it up. No matter how much we conserve now, somebody in the future is going to peer into the barrel and say ” Boo Hoo! Somebody’s used all the oil.”
It’s absurd to look at this as an ethical problem. It’s a practical problem.
There always seems to be a tone of moral indignation that accompanies the statement that “Americans don’t save”. The reason for saving is to try and ensure that you will have something to spend later. If you’re pretty confident that your income won’t dry up before you die, then there’s no reason to leave a bundle of unspent money for your heirs to spend. They won’t be any more deserving than you.
Why not be more conservative with our fuel supplies (more energy efficient) … we already have the technology to do this … to do nothing but bleat about the rights of fuel guzzling car owners is absoloutley immoral and ridiculous!!!