<$BlogRSDURL$>

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Obama's Energy Crisis 

Illinois Senator and Presidential aspirant Barack Obama laid out his energy policy in a May 7th speech at the Detroit Economic Club. It's idiotic--and proof Obama's too lightweight for the top job.

Barack begins by decrying "the tyranny of oil":
[T]he very resource that has fueled our way of life over the last hundred years now threatens to destroy it if our generation does not act now and act boldly.

We know what the dangers are here. We know that our oil addiction is jeopardizing our national security - that we fuel our energy needs by sending $800 million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world.
After channeling Al Gore on the coming climate "catastrophe" and the danger of "dirty, dwindling fossil fuel," Barack focused on "the cars we drive and the fuels we use," and advocated A day after Obama's address, the Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 357, Section 2(b) of which would raise the minimum required fuel economy for cars and light trucks (the so-called "CAFE standard") to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

According to Barack, "[t]he need to drastically change our energy policy is no longer a debatable proposition." That's my cue--here's why Obama's off-base (the Senate too): Conclusion: Senator Barack Obama's assumptions are off; his figures don't compute; he confuses causation; and he's ignorant of freshman-year economics. Concludes Hinderaker, "Obama's comment shows that he lacks common sense," adding:
Just as anyone with normal knowledge of the world should know that a tornado isn't going to destroy an entire town of 10,000 people and kill everyone in it, it should be obvious that no company's entire fleet of automobiles--let alone a country's--averages 45 mpg. Candidates have been ripped for not knowing, say, the price of a loaf of bread. But Presidential candidates do very little grocery shopping, and the gaps in Obama's knowledge that have been revealed in just a few days have much more to do with public policy issues.
Agreed--and Obama's energy plan also casts doubt on his credibility, according to Mark Phelan in the Detroit Free Press:
So his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes. Obama's choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars. The 340-horsepower 300C has plenty of room for the lanky senator, his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters. It gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway, good for a big sedan, but far short of hybrids and compact cars.
In sum, Barack's not only a lightweight--he's a typical paternalistic liberal, says Jackal at Rantburg, "I do compliment him on his taste in cars (I drive the same thing), but he wants to take that choice away from the hoi polloi and restrict it to politicians."

Energy policy raises serious questions. Barack Obama isn't a serious candidate to solve them.

___________________
1 [Added 5/21] Steven Hayward in American.com:
We seldom hear self-sufficiency lauded in connection with other essential goods, like automobiles, airplanes, food, or medicines. The U.S. currently imports about one-fourth of its timber--required for building homes and printing newspapers, books, and magazines. But we don’t hear calls for "ending our dependence on for­eign timber."
2 [Added 5/21] Though Barack demonizes Detroit, a planned modest CAFE standard increase is being challenged by various states--including left-wing California:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved a one mile per gallon increase in fuel efficiency last year, from 22.2 miles to 23.5 miles per gallon. Attorney General Jerry Brown calls the increase pathetic and illegal. He and the other plaintiffs believe the technology is there to make cars more efficient, but they accuse the government of protecting other interests and not the environment.

Jerry Brown, CA Attorney General: "They may actually increase the gas consumption and encourage gas guzzlers in order to protect certain companies. This bill, I don't think Karl Rove could have done a better job. It has the hand of lobbying, not the might of science."

Links to this post:

Create a Link

3 Comments:

To fundementally change the economics of personal transportation we need to change to another energy carrier - electricity. This has failed in the past, but with the advent of hybrid vehicles and Toyota's claim that hybrids will produce the same profit for them per vehicle as non-hybrids soon, this seems like a profitable way to get to a solution. The solution seems to be a plug-in hybrid vehicle where the price of electricity per equivalent gallong will be 50-70% less than gasoline. Given the slow adoption curve of new cars, we won't make a big impact until 2020. I don't believe that gasoline prices will go down due to this approach because the demand for oil continues to rise for non-transportation purposes.

By Blogger Indiantiger, at 8:35 AM, May 29, 2007  

This is another prime example as to why we should investing in our own Timber Stocks. Deltic Timber is a good timberland company that is doing considerably well. I found an article that details the role timber Stocks will play in the stock market by possible investors.

Investing in Timber Stocks

Cheers!

By Blogger daniel, at 4:08 PM, June 26, 2007  

I haven't believe in run out of oil statistics, but to make industry work better and to run a nation economy with positive growth rate their is a need of new technologies which discover the very new field or a new look better product than old one, which is the success behind most of business houses, Now our auto industry is on down trend to make it up words we need some new name, new technology, a new reason by which they can attract the users and run the economy.

By Anonymous Drivers Ed Georgia, at 10:35 AM, October 26, 2010  

Post a Comment


return to


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?