Obama’s green agenda IS Obama’s energy policy. The goal is noble, but it is failing. Other countries have been downgrading their subsidies to failed green initiatives, like England and Germany, while the United States doubles down. The green initiative needs to be gradual, and allow for passionate innovators to find solutions without stifling government regulations. Instead, billions gets wasted on those who are passionate about one thing: money.
President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have not been shy about their ambitions of high gas prices, which are, to them, better for the long term, as people will be “nudged” into buying more fuel economic vehicles and will be ultimately better for the environment. They do not want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but on all fossil fuels here and abroad. They do not say it outright because it is not popular politically.
From the Wall Street Journal in 2008, “Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.”
When challenged on previous statements regarding the benefits of the high cost of gas, the president mocks and deflects. Ed Henry from Fox news recently asked the president, “Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before that will wean the American people off fossil fuels onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?” Obama replied, “Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher? Is thatÂ—is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?”
The question was valid, and sadly, very few challenge the president on his past statements.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu
Steven Chu testified at the congressional hearing on Oversight and Government Reform last week. Rep. Darrell Issa asked Chu, who has been clear that his goal isn’t to lower the price of gas, but to “decrease our dependency on oil,” if he would grade himself on “controlling the cost of gasoline at the pump” as he had previously given himself an “A-“.
Chu responded, “The tools we have at our disposal are limited, but I would I say I would give myself a little higher in that since I became Secretary of Energy, I’ve been doing everything I can to get long-term solutions.”
Issa responded with quite a tirade and the news went crazy over Chu’s non-answer, which was about controlling the cost of gas, not about long term solutions. Jimmy Fallon even mocked Chu, he said, “Yesterday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that he would give himself an A for controlling the cost of gas,” Fallon said. “On behalf of Americans, I’d like to give him an FÂ—and a U. Five dollars a gallon for gas? You turkey!”
At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing earlier this month, Senator Mike Lee (R-Ut.) challenged Chu on his statements about the benefits of the high cost of fuel. He asked Chu, “So are you saying you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in America?” Chu responded: “I no longer share that view.”
The Washington Times Communities reminded us that “Back in 2010, Obama strongly flexed his anti-oil muscle, when he instituted a sixth-month moratorium on deepwater and shallow drilling. The price of gas was only $2.73 per gallon at the time of Obama implementing the moratorium.”
The Obama administration has already spent billions on ‘green energy’ companies, with most of them resulting in bankruptcy and massive layoffs. His Green Agenda is not working and he wants even more. For Obama’s 2013 budget proposal, “Programs for advanced research along with energy efficiency and renewable energy account for the biggest percentage increase in spending.” As chief of staff, Jacob Lew, said last month, “I think there is pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today.”