Politics | December 22, 2008 | 64 comments

Obama’s Energy Sec. wants gasoline prices to be three times higher

Image
Ares
In a sign of one major internal difference, Steven Chu, Obama's nominee for Energy Secretary, 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.

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

Is this guy for real? Does anybody think this is going to fly?
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Culture,   US Politics,   Current News US
  2. tags:
    Politics Culture US America 3 more
  3.     
    |

64 comments // Obama’s Energy Sec. wants gasoline prices to be three times higher

  • JohnChase
    • 0
      JohnChase  
    • Too much thinking inside the box. Replace the gas flat tax with a tax that rises when price falls and falls when price rises. Call it a "floating tax" or "reversing tax". It would stabilize price at the pump and encourage people to buy fuel efficient cars and invest in renewables.

    • 3 years ago
  • undeadbydawn
    • 0
      undeadbydawn  
    • Petrol [gas] prices have been kept artificially high in the UK for decades, mostly via huge taxation. Has it worked? Well.... yes.

      First, car manufacturers HAD to produce more efficient vehicles just to make running them affordable. People also use cars less in general because they're bloody expensive to run. Car sales have [until very recently] remained high because folks still need them.

      The whole US car issue is seen as pretty obscene. Huge and grossly inefficient cars are sold that guzzle fuel like it's an infinite resource with little or no environmental concern. But hey, if you pay bugger all for fuel, its to be expected.

      As for the comment '$10 bread', I wasn't aware their was a critical global bread shortage or that bread use was causing catastrophic atmospheric damage. I'll have to look that up.

      Put simply, if the government wants The People to be using less of something, making it cost a shitload more is a pretty effective way to do it. Increased fuel duty being poured into green technology is something I'd sure as hell approve of.

      Then again I've cycled to work every day for 6 years so what do I know.

      ps. the recent re-explosion in SUV sales the moment gas prices dropped? That tells you exactly how much this needs to happen. Some people really are just too fucking dumb to do the right thing without being led by the bank balance.

    • 3 years ago
  • brad62
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • undeadbydawn:

      "ps. the recent re-explosion in SUV sales the moment gas prices dropped? That tells you exactly how much this needs to happen. Some people really are just too fucking dumb to do the right thing without being led by the bank balance."

      a quick search of google news says you're wrong.
      link it up or admit that's a fabrication.

    • 3 years ago
  • pshot
    • 0
      pshot  
    • This money they would make off hard working Americans like myself would go to everything but were it needs to go. Does he think we are that stupid after seeing them toss billions of our money to fix there own mistakes. At this point they are no different then the members of OPEC. This guy is completely out of touch with the people of this country.

    • 3 years ago
  • PrimeTime
    • 0
      PrimeTime  
    • Yeah not going to fly with the cost of living still going up and the unemployment rate skyrocketing people will stop driving an buying oil and at that point ....... EVERYONE KNOWS THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND SYSTEM RIGHT........etc.......etc.... and the prices go back down again?

    • 3 years ago
  • kcfoxie
  • extracrazykiwi2008
    • 0
      extracrazykiwi2008  
    • Makes sense, but no one wants the government to make things more expensive than already are. Fix the economy 1st and then start working on forcing people to drive more energy efficient cars. If they are going to charge more gas tax, then I want a tax rebate for my car that gets 30+ miles per gallon or a huge tax break on a electric car. By huge I mean $5000.00+

    • 3 years ago
  • brad62
  • JackHerer
    • 0
      JackHerer  
    • Image
    • Hemp car was an alternative-fuel project car that utilized hemp biodiesel for fuel. Industrial hemp would be an economical fuel if hemp were legal to cultivate in the United States. Industrial hemp has no psychoactive properties and is not a drug. Hemp Car demonstrates the concept of hemp fuels on a national level and promotes the reformation of current law.

      The car toured America, with stops in Canada, frequenting alternative-energy, environmental, and hemp-legalization events. The car departed from Washington D.C. on July 4, 2001 and returned home on October 2, 2001. The car generated publicity, emphasizing the utility of industrial hemp to modern society. We provided the public with information about biofuels, hemp, their uses, and current American laws. We established a world distance record for a vehicle utilizing hemp for fuel: 10,000 miles.

      A network of hemp activists provided us with the hemp oil at planned intervals throughout the country. Funding, sponsorships, and networking were necessary for Hemp Car to succeed. We give great thanks to all of the activists and concerned citizens who made Hempcar possible.

    • 3 years ago
  • ThatBastardBeej
    • 0
      ThatBastardBeej  
    • Here's a little secret...the reason we have some of the cheapest gas prices among oil-importing countries is that the federal government currently subsidizes the gas we buy - that's a big part of the reason it costs so much more in Europe. Now where does the government get the money to subsidize the gas? Taxpayers, of course. We're paying for it either way. SO, if the government started taking away those subsidies and instead used that money for tax breaks on upgraded vehicles, we'd come out about even in our payout, but we'd have much more efficient transportation. Combine that with tougher EPA standards, and 30 years down the road we're all better off since we're buying much less of the then-expensive gas, helping the planet and putting out the same money (or less)

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
  • chowmein2012
  • wintermadness90
  • wintermadness90
    • 0
      wintermadness90  
    • bad step in the right direction. A majority of us still depend on gasoline, the only way to make us switch is to make alternative resources more accessible.

    • 3 years ago
  • bgeiger34
    • 0
      bgeiger34  
    • This is a joke! how many times have we seen tax payer dollars misused? And it seems the majority of you people enjoy paying taxes. But I work plenty hard for my money, like i'm sure the majority of you do, but i like to use that money how I want! Sorry to say it, the majority of Americans do not give a crap about alternative energy! Just look at the report that proved that the two top selling vehicles in the U.S. were gas hog trucks! Hybrids weren't even in the top 20 top selling vehicles! I don't know, this is not going to fly...

    • 3 years ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • bgeiger34:

      What drives me nuts about that mentality that my fellow Americans seem to have is that of the people I know that own their big gas guzzling pickups and the like, most of them don't use them for work, or for off roading. To most of the people I know who have these vehicles, its like a goddamn status symbol, or a desperate claim to prove since he has a bigger pickup truck, he must also have the bigger penis. Seriously, I have a Geo Metro, and I take that little bastard 3 cylinder car on rougher roads than most people I know with 4 wheel drive capability. Its not that their rigs can't do it, they just seem to pussy out of adventures or work when their precious truck might get a scratch.

    • 3 years ago
  • kylercoon
    • 0
      kylercoon  
    • Until further technology is developed, and the price of hybrid cars comes down, this plan is not feasible. Why would you force people to pay more for gas in order to accept change? People will change when they want to change. I am all for going green, and alternate fuels, but this is just a straight up stupid idea.

    • 3 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • what naysayers are failing to realize is that the tax revenue this policy would generate could help to increase energy efficiency, revamp our energy infrastructure, and galvanize alternative energy efforts. energy prices would be higher, but we'd need much less of it.

      also, the reason gas is so cheap right now is because demand has plummeted due to the previous price hikes. a tax increase would also decrease demand and reduce the cost.

      furthermore, we've likely surpassed peak oil and we're obliterating the environment. this can't go on forever and the consequences of not acting swiftly will be far more severe than increased gas taxes.

    • 3 years ago
  • AnemicElitist
  • Fbzx
  • BLAMM_O
  • Broey88
    • 0
      Broey88  
    • Isn't the problem the companies that refuse to switch to alternative fuels because it isn't financially benefiting to them...? Why not put legitimate pressure on those companies to provide affordable alternative fuel cars for the people instead of making life more unaffordable and challenging for Americans?

    • 3 years ago
  • drumguy08
    • 0
      drumguy08  
    • the pressure should be on car manufacturers to keep making fuel efficient cars. U shouldn't try to force the public into it. Raising the price of gas is gonna make the price of everthing else go up as well. And it's ridiculous to ask people to uproot their families and move into crowded areas closer to urban centers. Moving isn't exactly cheap either.

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
  • clayjj05
    • 0
      clayjj05 [removed]  
    • i havnt been on in a while, but the site has not disapointed me. Holy shit you people are actually happy about a promise about higher gas prices. Liberalism has got to be a mental disorder.

    • 3 years ago
  • BLAMM_O
    • 0
      BLAMM_O  
    • clayjj05:

      No. More like realistic about the way things are going to have to happen. It'd be cool if you could look America in the eye and say "You have a problem" and the people would get it. But they won't. Straight talk doesn't work. You have to put the squeeze on people with dependencies. Or we can "drill baby drill!!" all cowboy style like the wizards from the Right suggest. Super idea!!

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • clayjj05:

      I believe the 'right' had suggested using all available options, not just 'drill baby drill' but if you need to repackage it this way to push your agenda, its nothing unexpected from the liberal left. As if taxing the hell out of gas is the only solution, yeah-ok.

    • 3 years ago
  • ex_ferias
    • 0
      ex_ferias  
    • Hmmmm, there's a way to fix our problems, get government to do it....they handle other problems soooooo well. (Ex. Katrina, Economy, Diversification of energy sources, ad infinitum, ad nauseum)

    • 3 years ago
  • Fbzx
  • spartin86
  • bluestranger
    • 0
      bluestranger  
    • Raising prices artificially, again? Maybe being a member of the "people's party" Mr. Chu would consider giving the people a break. It might have more of it's intended effect if dependable and affordable green mass transit were in place first.

    • 3 years ago
  • BLAMM_O
    • 0
      BLAMM_O  
    • it seemed to have worked just wonderfully a couple of months back! the people responded, they bought bikes (what the eff are those, sir?!), scooters and motorcycles__i heard the bicycle industry saw like a 10,000% increase in sales. endorsing the idea that oil is priced in accordance with demand, this works. now do i like it, NO. it all depends on what kind of increase we can expect and how soon. but as the economy nurses itself back to recovery, as we start to see a budding green industry with jobs and a workforce, as the dollar reaches a level of normalcy, ABSOLUTELY. like a crack addict, we need to ween ourselves off of our dependency.

    • 3 years ago
  • Rollin7s
    • 0
      Rollin7s  
    • This is why Democrats piss me off just as much as Republicans, sometimes. Artificially inflating prices, in ANY industry, especially through government intervention is just FLAT WRONG. It doesn't matter that in this case, a "good" outcome (alternative energy) may come of it. The administration needs to set internal goals to COAX people from oil, not bankrupt everybody trying.

      “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” SCREW. THAT. Why do we need to copy Europe? Last time I checked, America is larger than a few European countries put together. The American people are hurting financially, now is not the time to tax us out of our homes.

    • 3 years ago
  • advertisehere
    • 0
      advertisehere  
    • Rollin7s:

      but it's perfectly fine for non-government entities to artificially inflate prices, for example, the last 8 years.
      i dont see how this will bankrupt everyone.. if we're given a heads-up about the gas tax people will have plenty of time to prepare, besides, he's proposing a time period of 15 years to inflate the prices, this would be happening more slowly than the price hikes of the past 8 years.
      the whole point is to tax us out of our huge inefficient cars, not our inefficient homes.

    • 3 years ago
  • Rollin7s
    • 0
      Rollin7s  
    • Rollin7s:

      Please tell me who/what you're referring to in your first sentence. If you're referring to a business entity, then yes, it IS fine for them to manipulate prices.

      So how will people have 'plenty of time to prepare?' Go look for a new job?

      Maybe you don't know a lot of people barely making it, but I do. When gas was $4, times were rough. Really rough. This guy Chu wants gas at $6-8 a gallon (that's how much it is in Europe).

      You really have that much faith in the US economy? You think $6-8 a gallon will be tolerable in 20xx?
      Don't forget the effect fuel prices have on food, and anything packed in freight.

      The point is, we won't be driving at all. Not if we can't afford to drive our gas cars to work and a new, shiny "renewable energy" car is $20k. Guess that means I get to sit next to the masturbating crackhead on the bus again.

    • 3 years ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Rollin7s:

      Odd, I've ridden the bus and subway plenty of times in numerous cities, and I've never had to sit next to a masturbating crack head.

      Outta curiosity, the people you know who were in a bind because gas was $4 a gallon... what do they drive?

      Also, the gas prices can do two things, you are merely focusing on one by pointing out that things like transportation costs and food costs will rise. The second possible event is an advancement in technology, both in terms of transportation and alternative fuels. Now advancements in either create new jobs, that does boost the economy. And if an alternative energy source is developed well enough to use for transportation, then food prices and the like will likely not sky rocket because there would likely be a cheaper alternative to gasoline. Also, food prices didn't really go up that much when gas prices peaked at almost $5 a gallon here in Northern California. Know why? It's because the shipping industries wised up. Rather than spend all that money to ship things the whole way by truck, the industries shipped the products as far as they could by train, and then got the products the last little bit of the way by truck. That saved and saves money because shipping freight by train costs about a third that of shipping by trucks.

      One last thing, why do people complain that we won't be able to survive if gas gets as costly as the prices in Europe? Last time I checked, the Europeans can live decent lives when gas costs that much, so why in the hell couldn't we do it?

    • 3 years ago
  • advertisehere
    • 0
      advertisehere  
    • Rollin7s:

      under chu's proposal, the price of gas wont be anywhere near even $4 (assuming the price of oil remains relatively constant) within the next few years, and assuming that the economy is able to recover at all, by the time they're at that level, people will have buying power anyway, so they'll hopefully be able to replace their old cars with the new efficient ones that the big three will be producing assuming they still exist.
      also, while fuel prices definitely have an effect on food prices, gas prices don't, diesel prices do.
      and in europe, diesel isn't taxed nearly as much as gasoline.

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • Rollin7s:

      A 96 Subaru Legacy with great emission testing. I need to have room for medical things in the back. It gets good gas mileage. But I live on so little money that even with low gas prices it's hard enough.

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • Rollin7s:

      "Outta curiosity, the people you know who were in a bind because gas was $4 a gallon... what do they drive?"

      My girlfriend drives a Toyota Corolla (40mpg). It was a strain on her, as she puts herself through college. When I had to commute 45 min to work it was in a Honda Civic (32mpg) and those type of prices would have cut into my earnings severely(and no, another job was not available closer). Why not consider cutting fuel demand by pushing up the EPA standards so less SUVs would make the cut instead of dropping the burden on the people who can afford it least?

      "One last thing, why do people complain that we won't be able to survive if gas gets as costly as the prices in Europe? Last time I checked, the Europeans can live decent lives when gas costs that much, so why in the hell couldn't we do it?"

      We don't live in Europe where everything is close and public transportation is more prominent. The US is many times the size of Europe. If you want a build out like this, you will be practicing endless eminent domain to acquire land and will have to pay the owners for this land, then do your costly project. We will have to pay for this and it wont be cheap.

    • 3 years ago
  • damnneargenius
    • 0
      damnneargenius  
    • True. The carrot method didn't seem to work too well.

      But how about we wait and let me be in charge of ramping up the gas prices instead?

      No, nevermind, I have no clue what I'm doing either.

      I'll have to do more research first.

    • 3 years ago
  • Jacques_of_Spades
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  
    • I think that raising the gas tax is the right way to go.

      If the government wants to mitigate some of the effect on people, it could always give generous tax deductions for buying hybrid or electric cars, or for retrofitting homes, with new insulation and so on, to make them more energy efficient. It could, also, give some other income tax breaks.

      However, higher gas taxes are needed to keep people buying fuel efficient cars and to conserve energy.

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • RCS:

      I agree with you on everything but the higher gas prices. EPA standards can be raised to initiate change instead of hurting every person and industry with ludicrous gas prices.

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
  • advertisehere
    • 0
      advertisehere  
    • RCS:

      one little thing, hybrid cars are bs. if you want efficiency, simplicity is key, get a light, compact car with a small engine.
      the whole hybrid system just adds weight, complexity and cost, both in the long run and initially.

    • 3 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • not to be harsh, but change isn't easy, some people will have hard times. but the reality is oil is not an acceptable fuel, nor is coal. and the sad truth is american's are too stupid to care about alternative forms of energy unless it's directly affecting their pocket books.

      an easier way would be for people to agree to develop and use alten, but that isn't very likely without a negative incentive now is it?

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • jh64487:

      I can go on welfare and make more than I am making. The other alternative is give tax incentives to buy American made vehicles that get over 40mpg instead of dumping $700+billion into the banking system who won't give you a loan anyway. I think my way is better, but we can do it your way and screw up the economy. I will take your handout and you can live with my weight on your back. Tell me when you feel the pain ;-)

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • I will never be able to afford (edited 4.50) dollars a gallon and chances are I will not be able to afford a new car anytime in the near future, or the far future. What about these people like myself that are just left on the sidelines?

      Sadly public transportation isn't so great here for the handicapped.

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  
    • arcticspirit:

      The article states that Chu is calling for gas prices of $4.50 a gallon, equivalent to--well, actually lower than--those in Europe. So, they would not be $9-12 a gallon.

      As for affording a car, a good tax break for fuel efficient cars would help people be able to afford them. On the other hand, some people may prefer to use public transportation and skip cars altogether.

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  
    • arcticspirit:

      ty, numbers and I are alien to each other. I appreciate the correction.

      I have applied for help with public transportation, but because I require help with my wheelchair (shattered wrist never healed very well) I am not "self sufficient" enough to use it.
      Most people here drive. The side walks are not friendly to even taking a walk with someone pushing me in my chair, they are so uneven I have nearly been vaulted out a few times!

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • arcticspirit:

      "The article states that Chu is calling for gas prices of $4.50 a gallon, equivalent to--well, actually lower than--those in Europe. So, they would not be $9-12 a gallon."

      Where does it say that? I think you are drawing that conclusion by looking at the picture. No where in the article does it state what you are claiming. It could be three times our current price or three times the prices we just experienced at the peak.

    • 3 years ago
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • My business and livelihood will cease. It almost did when gas went over $4.00 and is still on shaky ground. High gas prices don't only hurt my limo business, but transport of cargo which is passed on to consumers via higher prices on food and goods. This is downright scary, and just when I had some relief and hope. Change will come if EPA standards are raised on the car makers, but it has to be done gradually so it doesn't make the transition unaffordable for the middle and low wage earners who are in fact the majority of tax payers. This guy belongs in a college classroom, not making US policy.

    • 3 years ago
  • advertisehere
  • js9999
    • 0
      js9999  
    • js9999:

      The two are tied together to some degree. The fuels are both derived from oil. When we saw gas prices go up, diesel went up. Trucker's margins were shrinking, fuel surcharges were imposed. In Europe diesel is very popular to fuel cars, so what is to stop people from making that change over to diesel and then demand will drive up prices and in turn the government will want their cut. Your point is false.

    • 3 years ago
  • undeadbydawn
    • 0
      undeadbydawn  
    • js9999:

      consider the difference if cars use 75% less fuel for the same journey.

      higher prices will not matter.

      US cars are horribly inefficient, which is part of the reason they don't sell.

    • 3 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  
    • It's ridiculous because it's not enough. Chu is proposing to increase gas taxes over 15 years to get the price of gas up to the point at which it was a few months ago. I like the way he is thinking, I just don't think it's enough, quickly enough. Allowing for no increase in the next year while we're working our way out of a shiite economy of course.

    • 3 years ago
  • pinkerbelle
    • 0
      pinkerbelle  
    • I think that maybe this will force people to find better solutions. Perhaps renewable energy that can come from the waste we produce or something. I really hope that this is going to be the solution to the pollution created

    • 3 years ago
  • NotFooled
    • 0
      NotFooled  
    • Yeah, great idea, won't kill jobs, destroy the economy, lead to higher prices on everything, and make it impossible to grow food. What's next $ 20 for a loaf of bread.

    • 3 years ago
  • ALLNATURALVEGANS
more from Politics:

top videos