PoliticsPolitics of Energy

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: FUBHO who wrote (29943)2/24/2012 3:35:21 PM
1 Recommendation   of 80725
Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama

By BOB KING | from lorne

Can Steven Chu have a do-over?

President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was not yet a member of the not-yet-in-existence Obama administration. But Republican politicians and conservative pundits have seized on his words as evidence that the White House is deliberately driving gasoline prices higher — ensuring that Chu’s remarks are the energy policy sound bite that will not die.

Newt Gingrich was the latest to jump on the bandwagon, telling CBS’s “This Morning” on Tuesday that Obama’s “outrageously anti-American” energy policy is aimed at increasing the price at the pump.

“Chu, his Energy secretary, said in 2008 he wanted gasoline prices to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon,” Gingrich said.

A column Tuesday on Andrew Breitbart’s website Big Government also dredged up the 2008 quote, sardonically observing that “Mr. Chu’s energy plans appear to be working.”

Similar themes came last week from Investors Business Daily, which cited Chu’s remarks as evidence that Obama is “secretly cheering” for price spikes, and from Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll, who accused Obama and Chu of pursuing a “castor oil theory” of economic growth.

The popularity of Chu’s now-infamous quotation tends to track the rise and fall of gas prices: It enjoyed a huge surge of attention last spring and summer before largely vanishing from view in the fall, leading up to this month’s renaissance, according to the LexisNexis database.

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

"As he has consistently said, Secretary Chu understands how much high global oil prices can affect families at the gas pump,” DOE spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said Tuesday. She said long-term relief will come from strategies like the administration’s drive for higher fuel-efficiency standards in vehicles, which will slash oil consumption and “save families $1.7 trillion at the pump.”

DOE didn’t reply to a question about what Chu intended by his remarks in 2008.

In describing Chu’s remarks three months after the fact, in December 2008, the Journal reported that he “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.” But the article said Obama dismissed one strategy for raising the price — a hike in the federal gasoline tax — on the grounds that it would put "additional burdens on American families right now.”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Obama isn’t the cause of the rising prices and understands the pain they cause Americans.

“The fact is that the president is very aware of the impact that the global price of oil has on families and this is not something that this administration discovered, or rediscovered every spring, as some politicians do,” Carney said.

Experts have said that the price of oil, a global commodity, largely rises and falls based on forces such as unrest in the Middle East, demand by countries like China and activity in U.S. factories.

The monthly average retail gasoline price hit a modern-era peak of $4.26 a gallon in inflation-adjusted dollars in June 2008 — the summer of “drill, baby, drill” — before plummeting to $1.80 in the next six months during the financial collapse, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA predicts that prices will rise to as high as $3.64 a gallon this spring, while some pundits say they could hit $4 a gallon or higher.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (29942)2/24/2012 4:23:46 PM
From: i-node
   of 80725
That document was almost a breath of fresh air.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: russet2/24/2012 5:16:39 PM
4 Recommendations   of 80725
Satellites say increased CO2 levels doing nothing to climate temperature anywhere on Earth!

Is The Window Closing?
By Art Horn
Posted on Feb. 23, 2012

The historical temperature record shows that the earth has warmed about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850. But does that warming prove that we caused it? Some politicians in Washington say adding more carbon dioxide to the air is closing the window at the top of the atmosphere and allowing less heat to escape to space. The answer as to whether this is true or not is not going to come from looking at how much the earth has warmed up in the last 150 years. This planet has warmed and cooled so many times in the past that the current temperature trend is just a repeat of what has happened many, many times before. There are simply too many natural temperature cycles caused by too many forces of nature that will mask any underlying forcing mechanism. Thankfully there is a new way to find an answer. With the advent of the satellite era in the 1960s a revolutionary method of how to evaluate our possible impact on climate was born.

The satellites have the advantage of being free of all the effects that make surface temperature measurements so unreliable in evaluating our impact on climate. They can measure the entire irradiance of the earth from their perch high above the atmosphere without the problems ground based thermometers have. Problems like changing thermometer technology over the last 150 years. Problems such as urban sprawl spreading into the countryside warming long-term temperature readings that once were cooler when they were in a rural setting. Problems such as the uneven distribution of thermometers around the world and the lack of them over the oceans. The satellites are free of all of this and have been measuring the amount of long-wave radiation (heat) escaping from the atmosphere into space since the mid 1970s. The satellites know the size of the window and how much heat is getting through.

If the man-made greenhouse gas theory is correct the amount of heat going through the window into space should be decreasing over the last few decades, the window at the top of the atmosphere should be closing. Since 80% of all man made carbon dioxide emissions have been produced after 1940 we should be able to detect how much the window is closing over the last nearly four decades. If it is closing, less heat can sneak through to space and the atmosphere below will gradually warm up. The beauty of the satellites is that we can objectively deduce if it is closing. If it is, this would be significant evidence that burning of fossil fuels is strengthening the natural greenhouse effect and causing man made global warming.

So what do the satellites show? Since the mid-1970s the satellite data show no trend either up or down in Click here to read moreoutgoing long wave radiation. Plain and simple, the satellites say the window is just as wide open now as it was in 1974. The average value of outgoing long wave radiation through the last nearly four decades is about 232.5 watts per square meter. As stated above, there has been very little long term variation in this number since 1974. However, during that time carbon dioxide has increased from 330 parts per million to 392 parts per million today, an increase of 62 parts per million. The pre-industrial revolution carbon dioxide base line value is about 280 parts per million. Since then we have seen a rise of 112 parts per million. The 62 parts per million rise since 1974 represents a 55% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the 1850 level. Surely such a significant rise in carbon dioxide should be closing the window up there, if the theory is correct, but it’s not.

Is it possible that in some places the window is closing and not in others? No, it doesn’t matter where you look. The data shows no trend up or down at either of the poles. Water vapor is most of the greenhouse effect but at the poles, where there is much less water vapor due to the colder temperature, carbon dioxide is a more significant warming agent. But even in those locations where it should be most obvious, there is no indication that the window is closing, at either pole. The data shows the window is not closing above the tropics where the largest amount of outgoing long wave radiation is found. If the greenhouse effect is becoming more potent the out going long wave radiation would show a noticeable decreasing trend over the last nearly four decades in all of these regions but it does not. If the trend were there the satellite data would detect it. Actually since 2003 the amount of heat escaping to space has increased slightly. This increase is just part of the small natural variation that occurs over time and likely does not represent any long term trend.

Real world evidence from nearly four decades of satellite data has proven that large increases in carbon dioxide have not shown any sign of closing the window at the top of the atmosphere. No amount of computer modeling or rhetoric from famous people or proclamations from large institutions or speeches from our leaders in Washington can change this. The data alone should be enough for thoughtful, reasonable people to re-consider the causes of climate change. Unfortunately we are dealing with people and institutions with many different agendas in the global warming arena. Many of these individuals and institutions have a major financial stake in bolstering the man made global warming scare. Makers of windmills and solar panels are not going to suddenly admit that the greenhouse effect is not getting stronger. Their entire livelihood depends on it. The recent scandals of failed alternative energy companies are everywhere. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are being sucked out of our bankrupt economy only to see it washed down the drain by failed wind and solar companies. All because our leaders will not recognize that the window up there above us is just as wide open as it always has been.

Fossil fuels will be the energy source that powers the future for many decades to come. Knowledgeable people will continue to point out the overt flaws in the man-made global warming theory. These flaws have resulted in destructive policies that threaten your safety and prosperity, no matter what political party you belong to. The satellites say the window in the sky is open. The question is, when will our leaders open their eyes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: i-node who wrote (29934)2/24/2012 5:32:17 PM
From: Eric
   of 80725
This, from a man who has spent three years in office without a cogent energy policy, and in fact who has immeasurably HARMED the nation's ability to fuel itself with such nonsense as his knee-jerk reaction to the Gulf Spill (which would have been essentially harmless had we had a competent president at the time).

Really.. we are drilling much more under Obama than we ever did under Bush Jr......

What a stupid remark. This man is an idiot. The question isn't whether we can "drill" our way out of it. It is whether he has any other alternative. And he doesn't. For three years Pickens has been trying to get him off dead center on CNG/LNG and he has been a do-nothing. Now, all of a sudden, Obama's got all the solutions?

I'm chuckling here. He knows more about energy than you know about neutrons...!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: Eric2/24/2012 5:37:27 PM
   of 80725
From The Oil Drum today:

January Oil Supply Posted by Stuart Staniford on February 24, 2012 - 4:49pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: europe, oecd, oil consumption, united states [ list all tags]

Stuart Staniford is a scientist and innovator in the technology industry with advanced degrees in physics and computer science, This post presents the latest data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on crude oil and associated liquids production and price as of January 2012. This article is cross posted from Early Warning where it forms part of a long running series of articles that charts monthly changes in global oil supply (total liquids) from the EIA, IEA and OPEC.

Total liquid fuels were at all time highs in January, according to OPEC and the IEA.

A graph of changes just since 2008 is above, and a longer picture (with prices on the RHS) is here:

The combination of higher production and (slightly) lower prices is causing the price production curve to push the envelope of recent behavior:

The above data are all for "Total Oil Supply" aka "Total Liquid Fuels". To break it down into components we need to rely on EIA data that only go through October (so we can't see where the surge in Nov-Jan came from yet):

Note the above is not zero-scaled. It allows us to see that "crude plus condensate" (C&C) has been pretty flat since 2005, with increases in the total mainly coming from other components of the liquid fuel stream. This next picture makes a line graph of that data and moves the "crude plus condensate" line onto the right hand scale to make the changes in the different streams more easily comparable:

You can see that during the C&C plateau period since 2005, about 1mpd in additional total supply has come from a long standing trend in the increase in natural gas liquids (NGPL), while another 1mpd has come from "Other Liquids" and appears to be specifically a response to the plateauing of conventional oil. This is mainly biofuels. Note that the increases in "Other Liquids" appear to have leveled off in 2011. The world has very limited capacity to produce more biofuel without causing severe increases in food prices.

January Oil Supply Share | Show without comments | PDF version Related articles (automatically generated)
Global Oil Supplies as Reported by EIA's International Petroleum Monthly for September 2010 (September 12, 2010)
Global Oil Supplies as Reported by EIA’s International Petroleum Monthly for November 2010 (November 12, 2010)
Did Katrina Hide the Real Peak in World Oil Production? and Other Oil Supply Insights (October 9, 2007)
Peak Oil - April 2011 Update (May 2, 2011)
May 2008 EIA Oil Production Record. Will it Too be Revised Downward? (August 7, 2008)

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

    From: Eric2/24/2012 5:39:25 PM
       of 80725
    Peak Oil is here, Crude Oil price to reach $150 by 2012 Year End

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

    From: Eric2/24/2012 5:40:45 PM
       of 80725
    More drivers than ever may pay $5 per gallon

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

    From: Eric2/24/2012 5:42:04 PM
       of 80725
    $4 A Gallon Thursday: Gas Hits $4 Overnight

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

    From: Eric2/24/2012 5:44:00 PM
       of 80725
    Gingrich's $2.50 gas promise

    This one really had me laughing hard.

    There are suckers born every day..


    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

    To: Eric who wrote (29947)2/24/2012 6:35:07 PM
    From: i-node
    1 Recommendation   of 80725
    Really.. we are drilling much more under Obama than we ever did under Bush Jr

    Well, this argument is being made based (I think) on the rig counts. And while it is great for the consumption of the idiotic masses, surely you will agree that it is no way reflects on Obama policy, which has been to stand in the way of oil producers at every turn.

    Increased rig counts are the produce of years of development, practically all of which began before Obama took office and has continued in spite of him, not because of him.

    I have no doubt the Left will be lauding Obama (LOL) for his petroleum seeking prowess, but the reality is that progress is a result of just about everything EXCEPT Obama. And I think you knew this when you made this absurd post.

    I'm chuckling here. He knows more about energy than you know about neutrons...!

    I would say he's at least as knowledgeable about energy as Al Gore is about "climate change".

    Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
    Previous 10 Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.