No comment on this post by me?
The post is the comment, just as his statement was the comment.
Posted on 03/13/2012 11:27:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Isn't it amazing what a couple of bad polls can produce? In 2008, then-incoming-Energy Secretary Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal that American energy policy should be calibrated to drive the cost of gasoline to the same level as Europe in order to produce more demand for alternative energy production:
Mr. Obama plans soon to introduce his energy and environment team, which will include Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner as White House energy adviser ...
In a sign of one major internal difference, Mr. Chu 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.
Almost four years later, with Barack Obama beginning to see his polling slip on rapidly-rising gas prices and the compounded pain it causes working- and middle-class families, Chu finally walked back that statement in testimony to Congress today:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday retracted his now-infamous quote from 2008: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
“I no longer share that view,” Chu said in response to questioning from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, at aSenate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on another topic related to DOE’s loan-guarantee program.
Not that he sounded convincing:
Chu seemed to equivocate, pause, and stumble over his words when responding to Lee’s question about high gas prices. Other comments Chu made at another hearing late last month put him in hot water on gas prices. Politico reported on Feb. 28 that Chu told a House committee he was not working to lower gasoline prices but to wean the United States off oil. That story has since been corrected to clarify that DOE is working to both lower gas prices and wean the country off oil. But that was only after the story was picked up by Republicans and used against the administration.
The Hill picks up on another part of his testimony that raises questions about his sincerity:
But Chu declined to say whether he regretted making the 2008 comments.
“Let me not comment on that,” he said.
National Journal seems to be going out of its way to give Chu some cover. Here’s the actual answer and response from last month:
Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
Clearly, the “overall goal” for this administration is not to lower gas prices. It’s to game the system to make alternatives compete better against fossil fuels. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the administration wants a rapid rise in gas prices, but it certainly doesn’t mean that they want to see gas prices fall substantially, either — at least not until gas prices start harming Obama’s re-election chances. The alternative energy sources this administration champions can’t compete against mature energy sources, even with the billions of dollars in subsidies that Obama has poured into the industry. The outcome has been a complete bust — literally, in the cases of Solyndra, Beacon, and Ener1, among others.
From NJ’s report, it sounded as if Chu had considerable difficulty serving up this reversal. The rest of us will find it difficult to swallow, too.
He's pulling a "no comment" on what he himself is on record saying?
IOW, he's refusing to tell us what he thinks about what he says.
Nobody will buy the flip flop....obvious LIE
Carner said today that Chu`s remarks in 2008 and 2012 have nothing to do with Obummer`s energy policies- hahaha. idiots.
Carner said today that Chu`s remarks in 2008 and 2012 have nothing to do with Obummer`s energy policies- hahaha. idiots.
anyone got a picture of Mr or Mrs Chu taking a metrobus to work?
What has been said cannot be unsaid...just ask Sandra Fluke!
Nobel Prize in Physics winner? Obviously smart.
Liberalwho has received a Nobel Prize in Physics winner? Obviously smart in physics...but not in much else.
Perfect fit for the Obamaloon collection of felon/cretin/tax-dodgers.
Chu is flip-flopping even more than RINOmney.
Attention Enviroweenies:
There is a pipeline in your immediate future.
Prepare to go under the bus.
Using regulations to reduce domestic supply is the most bad. It creates higher prices (the supposed good thing), and results in more money and jobs being exported. Some would argue that it's “good” to save up the oil in the ground, for future consumption. However, many of these same people also argue that fossil fuels will soon be obsolete sources of energy.
Using regulations to prevent imports from friendly neighbouring countries, is somewhat less bad (not better!). It creates higher prices, and somewhat reduces the amount of money and jobs being exported. However, it also increases the money being sent to hostile countries.
Increasing gas taxes is probably the least bad (NOT BEST!!!) way of achieving the dubious goal of higher prices. That's how they do it in Europe — and it's how we do it here in Canada (despite being one of the world's largest net exporters). Consumers still have the higher prices — which is supposed to be what we're trying to achieve here. The government now gets the extra money, rather than oil companies. If the government reduced other taxes accordingly; then this would be even less bad.
In some alternate universe, there may be a government that would reduce other taxes after raising gas taxes — in that imaginary universe, higher gas taxes would certainly be the least bad way to increase gas prices at the pump. Of course, in that imaginary universe, we would just fly to work on our unicorns, thus rendering the issue of gas prices moot.
You must be speaking to the true enviro believers,
because most of them understand that the environmental movement
is simply a facade issue for the advancement of the communist agenda.
They’ll make excuses for any “dialectical march” that 0bama does on environmental issues.
No comment on this post by me?
The post is the comment, just as his statement was the comment.
Having lived in Germany, I remind one and all that its public transportation is all that stateside advocates would want. Even so, trains and buses go by empty, because the privat Auto provides so much liberty. Those who can afford them buy the big cars.
energy and environment team? Wouldn’t a better name for this be the environment and environment team. Not one member has any knowledge of the energy industry, except to impede it.
Winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t mean you are necessarily very smart. Case in point Obama and Al Gore received Nobel Prizes too. Sec. Chu is a green ideologue who is totally out of touch with the energy needs of ordinary Americans as evidenced by his not owning an automobile. I think it should be mandatory that the Energy Secretary drive a Chevy Volt to and from his job and have a lot of change in his pocket for bus fare.
Passenger service has never been profitable for railroads. Not ever. and that is the general rule. I would go with having the public pay for the railways etc, and let the public pay for the rolling stock. Same break that trucking companies get.
I think we discovered Mrs Chu drives a tree-killing BMW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.