HIgher Gas Prices
By debrakcarey
@debrakcarey (19887)
United States
May 14, 2011 3:23pm CST
Steven Chu, Obama's energy czar has been quoted as saying; "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,"
Now he's done a turn around; Mr. Chu, who was expected to get a friendly and brief review by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said in prepared testimony that “last year’s rapid spike in oil and gasoline prices not only contributed to the recession we are now experiencing, it also put a huge strain on the budgets of families all across America.’’
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/steven-chu-eases-up-on-the-gas-price-pedal/
Sec. Chu is also quoted as saying 'ooal is my worst nightmare'.
His credintials are pretty impressive and I don't doubt he is a smart man. He's found out that the world of science and politics don't mix well. YOU simply don't say what you really mean in politics as you can in the scientific community.
My question to you is, are you willing to pay the price for going green by paying up to $10 a gallon for gas? What about getting to and from work, the energy cost of doing business as so forth. Can we not find a way to be more enviromentally responsible while keeping gas prices down? What about invovation in green energy. I heard an interview with a man who has invented a magnetic motor he's like to develope for cars and trucks, but he was told by the patent office they will not give him a patent due to the loss of jobs in the auto industry if it works. ????
Now why would an administration that is supposedly big on 'green' object to a new industry that would not only prove very 'green' but open up NEW jobs by creating a NEW industry?
2 people like this
4 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
15 May 11
Everything the government does is about controlling the population. That includes the price of getting to work., if you have a job. The price of groceries,and anything else that is required. You do nothing without Big Brother's approval.
Eff the czars and the 0bomination that they rode in on.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
15 May 11
Can we change this and go back to say...fifty or a hundred years ago? I doubt it. We didn't know what we had. We were not vigilant. We forgot who is really in charge and now we suffer fools and criminals to rule over us.
1 person likes this
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
16 May 11
Oil is a really tricky topic for everyone. When you control a resource critical to a population and make billions doing so, you have a lot of power of the population and can buy a lot of government. Basic economic theory tells us that if an electric or other type of motor were used it wouldn't tank the economy. Oil reliant jobs would slowly disappear but jobs in another industry would be created. The real problem is the oil companies have too much power.
Look up "Who Killed the Electric Car." It basically asks why GM really pulled all it's electric vehicles almost 10 years ago now and all the electric Toyotas vanished too. The "conspiracy theory" seemed to be that an oil company now owns the only patent to the batteries needed to produce electric vehicles.
A big problem isn't just government, we as the consumer refuse to change our habits and as supply fails to keep up with demand price will continue to move up until we force a change instead of waiting around for everyone else to come up with a better solution. We need to be more efficient in our daily consumption.
Sadly, if we don't change, we will be forced to in a quite unpleasant manner. If the pay of going to work isn't significantly more than the cost of getting there people will be forced to work, shop, and socialize closer to home. It could force us back into localized communities where everyone works, plays, etc within the same small area. Bicycles and public transit will become more common. The down side will be that any company that requires high speed individualized transportation or relies on gas will suffer greatly. And that covers a lot of industries. Heck if people can't afford gas they definitely won't be buying new cars. Wanna talk about killing the auto industry.
The bottom line is, the clock is ticking and the oil industry is going to milk us for every penny they can get before their only source of income dries up.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
16 May 11
You may be right. There is a reason for everything the government does and its not always in our best interests. The oil companies are out to make a profit, this is true. But wouldn't it make more sense to diversify? Than to kill an entire industry that would help the economy and thus help them?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
16 May 11
To diverify, to build alternatives to gas burning engines. I'm speaking of the auto industry.
I see where the oil companies may not want this, but the government is saying we need to look at these alternatives and doing nothing to promote them. If they can take over GMC, why can't they promote the alternatives?
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
16 May 11
For the auto industry it's a matter of business.
1. They have to sell a product people want and will pay enough for that they can make a profit. Gas hybrids cost extra money to research and produce over what is already being made. Hence a higher cost to the consumer and whether or not they'll ever save the difference fuel costs is questionable.
2. Other than the few electric vehicles like the Tesla. There is the logistic setback of fuel supply. Would you buy a vehicle that ran on a fuel only a few stations sold? Would a fueling station spend money to sell a fuel that only a few vehicles use? Electric vehicles will probably be common in the future, but for now they are too expensive for most people and still have limitations that make them less desirable, especially as an only car.
For the government. It's kind of a gray are of law and politics. The US did give a very large financial incentive to GM for the EV1 project. But for the government to run a for profit business would be a conflict of interest as well as an outrage. There would be no freedom in Uncle Sam telling you what car and fuel to buy. Governments have been putting millions into researching alternative fuels and there are some out there, but in the end the consumers will have to make the decision.
@finlander60 (1804)
• United States
15 May 11
Regarding this "Magnetic Motor." If you apply for a patent for a "New Product or Improvement upon an existing Product." The Patent Office has no choice but to give you a patent on it. I think someone is pulling your leg in this regard. Be very cautious around the folks who will tell you these kinds of things. They may not be playing with a full deck.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
15 May 11
http://www.patentoffice.com/denied-patent.cfm.htm
It was a radio interview and I don't even remember the man's name. He said he's been working on this for twenty years and has been denied three times. I have only his word to go on.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
15 May 11
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm
It is well known that Tesla's inventions were taken from him. Some even believe that the US government stole his ideas. Of course, this is one of those 'conspiracy theories'. 
My point is, what should be and what is...often are two different things.
My point is, what should be and what is...often are two different things.
@RebeccaScarlett (2532)
• Canada
17 May 11
I don't think it's lost jobs anyone's worried about...I think it's lost financial backings from Big Oil.
