Government meddling with the free-market forces can have ill consequences. Just look at how government mandates for corn-based ethanol have affected the global food supply.
According to CNN senior business correspondent Ali Velshi, CNN viewers rate the economy as the most important issue and named gas prices as their number one concern. "AOL Money Coach" Hilary Kramer agreed with viewers, but regarded Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama's proposal as "valuable" when matched with alternative energy legislation.
"Absolutely right," Kramer said on CNN's May 5 "Issue #1." "That's why Barack Obama with a $150 billion package that he wants to jumpstart an entire industry alternative energy and clean technology could be very valuable, especially matching that up with legislation to force the use of alternative energy."
Nothing detailed in Obama's plan has any short-term answers to higher gas prices and assumes the only solution is alternative energy and ignores the other proposals.
Legislation introduced May 1 by Senate Republicans would open the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain for oil exploration, grant the EPA authority to permit new refineries and suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 180 days. Those solutions are often ignored by the media and politicians as they consider "alternative energy" the only fix for high gas prices.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
For many Anthropogenic
May 5, 2008 - 16:35 ET by danboFor many Anthropogenic Global Warming expert? Isn't this what it's all about.
1st you get lots of money from the federal government to produce a more expensive product that wouldn't be cost effective otherwise. Then 2 you get the federal government to force people to buy your over priced product.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"CNN calls Obama $150
May 5, 2008 - 16:49 ET by Chris Norman"CNN calls Obama $150 Billion Energy Proposal 'Valuable'"
Well, of course it's valuable. Obama proposed it. Everything he does is "valuable, wise, and reasonable". He could've proposed that everyone ride tricycles and the media would all stroke their chins, nod, and declare the idea was "brilliant".
Well you know if
May 5, 2008 - 16:45 ET by dscottWell you know if Obama really wanted to shake things up for alternative energy he would go with my suggestion using the EECT.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
forget about the "military-industrial complex"
May 5, 2008 - 17:26 ET by UndercoverConservativeI'm seeing a hell of a lot more damage from the "enviro-industrial complex" and the "politico-industrial complex" :(
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Remember. The worse damage
May 5, 2008 - 18:10 ET by danboRemember. The worse damage to the environment isn't in a capitalist society . Rather it's in one where the state controls. (As the China or the former Soviet Union.)
Business have to stay clean to avoid the wrath of the government. If it's the government screwing things up...
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
OBAMA'S PROPOSAL
May 5, 2008 - 18:56 ET by ferv888I love the govt. involment. While living in California, your wonderful Environ's decided that MTBE should be in every gallon of gas and the state mandated it. At this time MTBE is now considered a Cancer causing chemical. How did the state react when the oil companies asked to be indemified from the lawsuits, "Oh no, that is your problem." Welcome to govt. control.
Why in the hell do we not make the light shine on things like the vaccine shortages caused by Bill Clinton when they tried to control the vaccines. The news media forgot all about that and ran with the story as if the current administration or the drug companies were at fault.
another public school graduate
May 5, 2008 - 20:25 ET by wizardjrand dumb as a box of rocks. If we spent the $150 Billion on developing known and suspected oil and gas here in the good old US of A and in fast tracking one or two known good reactor designs for licensing we'd be out of the woods in less than ten years. Fact.
Instead, we'll piss it away on more feel-good bad science, bad economics stupidities. I mean, after all, if it feels like good science then it must be good science, right? Just ask those folks down in Texas what they think of wind turbines since the day the wind stopped. Can you say "Lights out."?
ENERGY POLICY...
May 6, 2008 - 05:00 ET by danybhoyOk, if you are reading this & are connected to any of the 3 people with a chance of being elected President, I have the REAL answer to America's energy problems.
1. Drill for oil in our own country. Off of the coasts of CA & FL...The continental shelf in UT,WY, & UT have tons of oil...We know ND has plenty of oil as well...& finally, ANWAR.
2. Coal to oil, the Nazis developed the technology, our military use it, we should ALL USE IT.
3. We need to build refineries, lots of refineries, we have not built 1 since 1978, so lets get to it. Also, how many blends of gas do we need? Get it down to 3 or 4 blends, keep it simple.
4. SCREW ETHENOL...I can't say this loud enough, SCREW ETHENOL. Quit subsidizing ethenol plants, this product could not support itself in the free market. Big oil is evil in the eyes of many, but big corn is not? At least with big oil, I know I am getting something I need at an ok price. Compaired to big corn, which is causing the price of everything going through the roof, fuel, food, everything. We eat corn, we should not burn it as fuel.
5. Build more nuke power plants, they work, people.
Do these things, & America will be better off now & in the future. We will have the fuel we need, & at a better price then it is now. We would also have food at a better price as well, we would be eating it, not burning it as fuel, & people overseas would be having food riots. They need to eat as well.
Again, this post is for those running for President, not 1 of them has an acceptable answer for our energy needs. You say we need to get off of foreign oil from people who hate us, this is the way to go to achieve that. Yes, I want alternative energy, & work on that WHILE we use our own oil. We have it, use it, the gov't needs to get the hell out of the way & we will have a workable energy policy. SCREW THE "GREENS" & DO IT.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
All alternative energy options are more expensive
May 6, 2008 - 08:32 ET by c5thenNot to mention not self-sustaining. Ethanol is only viable as long as it is subsidized by the Government. Take the subsidy away and any ethanol based business loses money and goes bankrupt. Same is true for hydrogen. It takes more energy to create, transport and store the hydrogen then you can get out of it. Solar is only a back-up or secondary option. The sun is not shinning enough in most of the country to survive on pure solar. Same with wind.
When (or if) any alternative option becomes cost competitive with oil and is self-sustaining (at least equal energy out as has to be put in) then the free market will switch faster than Congress can take a roll call.
Obabma's answer would drive prices for everything up through the roof and not provide any security or confidence at all. The whole country would be in a recession and continuously hanging on the edge of no power.
As for Hillary Kramer...I think I'll take her advice like I do Jim Cramer's on CNBC...specifically listen to what they have to say and recommend, and then do the opposite.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.