Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at intelligent and rational individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

"Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not." Ayn Rand

"The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not 'selflessness' or 'sacrifice', but integrity." Ayn Rand

24 February 2012

Obama Responsibility for High Gasoline Prices

If Obama had cared about the people's welfare he would have taken the following actions to have greatly reduced the run-up in gasoline prices that are now slowing the growth of the economy and hurting all Americans' standard of living:

1)  Have allowed more drilling off-shore and in the excessive federal land holdings.

2)  Have ended the ethanol blend edicts that add greatly to cost and reduce production.

3)   Have ended the cellulosic ethanol penalties the refineries must pay for not using the cellulosic ethanol which is not commercially produced and available, requiring that the cost of the penalties be passed on to consumers.

4)  Have allowed the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline early in his administration so it would be delivering oil from Alberta, North Dakota, and Montana to oil refineries in the US and to the central oil pipeline hub in Cushing, OK, thus bringing down gasoline prices.

5)  Have made it easier to build new refinery capacity in the US with reasonable EPA rulings.

6)   Have put more effort into getting Iraqi oil production up and into world markets.

7)  Have avoided threatening oil and gas companies with higher taxes and punitive government actions thus frightening them (and their credit sources) from investing more in US production of oil and finished petroleum products.

8)  Have not issued threats against the use of fossil fuels claiming a role in catastrophic AGW by the Obama EPA specifically causing uncertainties in the future demand for oil and gas products.

9)  Have not encouraged those interested in energy production to waste their money and manpower on unreliable and very expensive wind and solar power, thereby deflecting money and interest away from economically useful sources of power.

10)  Have not slowed economic activity in general causing a feedback effect upon the investment put into oil and gas production and the production of products from them since it becomes harder to expect a general growth in demand for these products.

11)  Would not have failed to control Iran's ability to create uncertainty of oil supply from the Middle East.  This is perhaps the least of his failures due to the completely unreasonable nature of the Iranian regime, but he surely might have done a better job here.

12)  Would not have flooded the economy with printed money, causing the value of the dollar to fall with respect to the value of the imported oil commodity.  While the responsibility is shared with the Federal Reserve, the heavy deficit spending largely forced the Federal Reserve to print money.

When Obama tries to make it appear that none of this is his fault, he is making a huge lie. In addition, his radical environmentalist allies have a very long track record of responsibility for harming US oil and gas production and the production of their products.  We can count on Obama to find many ways to use the suffering of the people caused by these high prices as justification for still more governmental controls over their lives and over all economic activity.


garret seinen said...

I wonder if you should not add, initiate a scientific inquiry into the true danger of radiation exposure and bring an end to the flawed LNT theory allowing a massive shift from coal to the cleanest, least dangerous energy source we have yet discovered. This would free up an huge volume of diesel fuel as fewer train and heavy mining equipment would be dedicated to our electrical energy production

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

Garret, I believe you are suggesting we should use less coal and more nuclear power, but I might be wrong about your intent.

The new EPA rulings that mercury and other harmful emissions from coal have to be much more strictly limited is also based upon a form of the Linear No-Threshold model for harm to health. This hypothesis is clearly wrong. Selenium is on many of the hazardous metals lists, yet we take it in small quantities with vitamin pills. It is also a protection against mercury, whose primary source for humans is seafood, since the oceans are full of natural mercury.

The trace elements B,Cr, Co, Cu, F, I, Fe, Mn, Mo, Se, Si, and Zn are added to vitamin supplements, but Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Se, and Zn are all listed on one of more dangerous element lists. Of course, the most dramatic exception to LNT is water. Now if LNT applies well to x-ray and gamma radiation, then many medical uses would be more restricted than they are and people would not be allowed to live in brick houses. Many more houses would have to be condemned for radon exposure as well.

There is a tendency to apply much more LNT alarms to commercial activities than to those of individuals making personal choices. Personally, I believe the recent EPA application of LNT to coal emissions is foolish. I wrote about that a short while ago: