Is Obama to Blame for $4 Gasoline?

[phkrause]

Summary

Conflicting, false and misleading statements on oil production and gasoline prices have become the currency of politicians lately, as oil tops $100 per barrel and gasoline hovers near $4 per gallon. Among some of the claims that got our attention:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame-for-4-gasoline/

[olger]

Absolutely!!!

Paul, his (O's) wholesale deference to the Green Dragons has further damaged America's ability to drill for our own oil. So we disturb some moose and moss. What's worse, disgruntled fauna or funding our enemy?

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think Obama's tactics are to blame for high oil prices however they have contributed to the slow economic recovery. The more oil we can produce at home, the more jobs are created and the less of our dollars flow out of the country into foreign nations. It isn't just oil either, Obama is against coal which can provide thousands of high-paying American jobs. We can turn coal into gasoline and sell it for $3/gallon.

[olger]

Exactly.

[Neil D]

I don't think Obama's tactics are to blame for high oil prices however they have contributed to the slow economic recovery. The more oil we can produce at home, the more jobs are created and the less of our dollars flow out of the country into foreign nations. It isn't just oil either, Obama is against coal which can provide thousands of high-paying American jobs. We can turn coal into gasoline and sell it for $3/gallon.

And what of other factors that add to the cost of coal? For example, black lung from inhaling coal dust over many years? Have we factored the cost of taking care of those discarded people who have given thier lives to work the mines? Here are other problems that dont seem to get factored into the cost of coal...

There are a number of adverse health[46] and environmental effects of coal burning[47] especially in power stations, and of coal mining. These effects include:

Coal-fired power plants shortened nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer[48]

Generation of hundreds of millions of tons of waste products, including fly ash, bottom ash, flue-gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals

Acid rain from high sulfur coal

Interference with groundwater and water table levels

Contamination of land and waterways and destruction of homes from fly ash spills such as Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill

Impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land-uses

Dust nuisance

Subsidence above tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure

Uncontrollable underground fires which may burn for decades or centuries.

Coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure

Coal-fired power plants emit mercury, selenium, and arsenic which are harmful to human health and the environment[49]

Release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, which causes climate change and global warming according to the IPCC and the EPA. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air[50]

I know that we can contain these problems, but the costs don't seem to be factored in to the final cost of getting that gasoline from coal....While we have lots and lots of coal, we have to understand that those things are finite...Whereas wind and sea generated electricity are basically unlimited....

[Neil D]

Apparently, there are tax breaks and goverment subsidies given which are given to the coal industry that are not factored into the cost of coal...check this out...

Quote:

Some of the simplest economic costs of coal come in the form of subsidies and tax breaks which are not reflected in the market price of coal (for example the estimated $4.6 billion in coal-related subsidies in the 2009 stimulus package). Coal mining and combustion projects require major investments, and the risks and costs of those investments are often passed on to taxpayers via infrastructure subsidies and loan guarantees. An extreme example of this is the Healy Clean Coal Project (HCCP), which has cost the State of Alaska and the Federal Government nearly $300 million since the mid 1990s to evaluate experimental clean coal technology. Similarly, a recent study in Kentucky determined that the government spends $115 million more on subsidies for the coal industry in the state than it receives in taxes or other benefits.

Taxpayers also pay the costs of cleaning up environmental disasters caused by the coal industry. Cleanup of the recent coal ash spill in Tennessee is estimated to cost up to $1 billion, not including pending litigation. Now that the cleanup at this site has been taken over by the EPA under the Superfund law, most of this cost will be borne by the US taxpayer.

The health impacts of coal pollution have enormous economic costs, through health care costs and lost productivity. The Ontario government study estimated these costs as billions of dollars within Ontario alone. A similar recent study in West Virginia found that the cost associated with premature death due to coal mining was five times greater than all measurable economic benefits from the mining.

Other industries depend on the ecosystems coal mining destroys. This economic impact on industries such as recreational fishing, commercial fishing, and tourism is particularly relevant in Alaska. Almost 55,000 direct jobs (full time equivalent basis, FTE) are closely linked to the health of Alaska's ecosystems. These jobs make up more than a quarter of Alaskan FTE employment and produce almost $2.6 billion of income for Alaska workers. These 55,000 ecosystem-dependent jobs dwarf the 350 estimated jobs that would be created by a project such as the Chuitna Coal strip mine.

Negative effects on the economy lead to worse health in the population, which has an impact on health care costs, compounding the economic impact. Some people have used this to argue that coal has additional benefits to society. The argument is that coal provides cheap electricity, which is a boon to the economy, therefore health is improved, and health care costs are lowered. While this additional health effect should indeed be considered, it should be applied after the economic impacts discussed above. Once the costs of pollution, global warming, and habitat destruction are added to the benefits of cheap electricity, the economic impact of coal is no longer positive, and this additional health effect only makes it even more costly.

Still want to use coal to power the economic recovery??? I don't think so...

[Woody]

We need a President who will keep his word.

The sooner we can rid ourselves of Obama the quicker the price of oil will go down.

His policies do several things. They cost Americans job and they make American dependant upon foreign oil and they raise the cost that we pay at the pump.

Please Santorum - save us from this mess. The Obamitization of America.

[Dr. Shane]

Still want to use coal to power the economic recovery??? I don't think so...

Absolutely!!! I am not scared by the Extreme Left's fear tactics. This is America. We can produce energy safely, clean and profitable.

The reason private industry hasn't started making gasoline from coal on their own is because the fluctuation in oil prices. If and when oil drops below $40/gallon the coal-to-liquid-fuel industry would go bust. Gasoline has to be around $3/gallon for coal-to-liquid to be profitable.

Now if the government were to enter into a 10-year contract to purchase coal-made gasoline at $3/gallon, we would see the private investment happen without government subsidies. Of course some would consider the contract itself a subsidy but and that certainly is debatable.

China and South Africa are currently making gasoline from coal. -> China’s Coal to Liquids Program Not Allowed in the United States

[olger]

We not only need to get rid of Obama - we need to significantly neuter the Green Dragon, and reduce their freakish level of power.

`G

[Woody]

Obama is killing me each time I gas up.

[Bravus]

And yet you still want Santorum as the candidate, though it's obvious he'd get flogged at the general and doom you to 4 more years of Obama?

Bizarre!

[Woody]

Bravus. I just can't imagine anyone voting for Obama after what he has done to this nation. So, I want to get the best person to replace him and I think that the more that people know of Santorum the more they will like him.

[Bravus]

Have a good time in that alternate reality, mate!

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Still want to use coal to power the economic recovery??? I don't think so...

Absolutely!!! I am not scared by the Extreme Left's fear tactics. This is America. We can produce energy safely, clean and profitable.

"Extreme Left"....it does kinda produce a cautionary note...However, wikipedia does have some really pragmatic and independant ideas...of which this is where this information came from...And most of YOUR information has come from the coal industry...which is promoting the idea...and if you look at the cost, the total cost, including health care...well, even coal is too expensive an energy product....even at $5/gallon

[Woody]

The purpose of Obama is to drive up oil costs in order to promote his leftist ideas on the environment. He has stated this. So, it should be no surprise. It was his campaign platform.

[lazarus]

Have a good time in that alternate reality, mate!

Woody! What's happened to you? We can't get a decent, logical response out of you these days. You've always been a crazy right winger but a least you'd give us a half decent response. What's going on?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Have a good time in that alternate reality, mate!

Woody! What's happened to you? We can't get a decent, logical response out of you these days. You've always been a crazy right winger but a least you'd give us a half decent response. What's going on?

[Dr. Shane]

And yet you still want Santorum as the candidate, though it's obvious he'd get flogged at the general and doom you to 4 more years of Obama?

I would rather see Romney get the nomination that Santorum but I am not convinced at all that Santorum couldn't beat Obama. Obama is very vulnerable and while he may not be to blame for high gas prices, if we start to see record highs, he is going to get the blame.

[Dr. Shane]

most of YOUR information has come from the coal industry...which is promoting the idea...and if you look at the cost, the total cost, including health care...well, even coal is too expensive an energy product....even at $5/gallon

The coal industry brings the conversation into the public arena. I don't have a problem with that. I would like to see us move away from using coal to generate electricity and move more toward wind and nuclear. One of the factors in figuring carbon footprint of coal-to-liquid fuel is the amount of coal-generated electricity the refining process takes. The the refining process were to use nuclear power instead of coal-generated power, it would have a much smaller carbon footprint. It has been shown that when coal-produced electricity is used for the manufacture and charging of electrical cars, that the gasoline car has a smaller carbon footprint. So what we should be looking to do is get away from coal-produced electricity and developing new markets for coal - such as liquid fuel.

[Bravus]

Michigan is an open primary. I predict Santorum does poorly, and that it's in some ways the best indicator we've had so far of the general election. Santorum's 'culture war' approach has played well with the base but will have alienated everyone else. He can't win a general election in which more than half the voters are women.

[Dr. Shane]

I too am a bit concerned about Santorum's social positions. They are very close to the Religious Right. However I still don't think that means sure defeat against Obama. Marketing can do miraculous things. Some thought that Reverend Wright would be the end of Obama and yet Obama went on not only to get the nomination but to become President. Obama is very vulnerable. His attack on religious liberty has really raised a red flag with me as it has with many Catholic Democrats.

[Woody]

Quote:

Obama is very vulnerable. His attack on religious liberty has really raised a red flag with me as it has with many Catholic Democrats.

It is Obama's assult on the Constitution that has caused me to not want to vote for him.

[phkrause]

I too am a bit concerned about Santorum's social positions. They are very close to the Religious Right. However I still don't think that means sure defeat against Obama. Marketing can do miraculous things. Some thought that Reverend Wright would be the end of Obama and yet Obama went on not only to get the nomination but to become President. Obama is very vulnerable. His attack on religious liberty has really raised a red flag with me as it has with many Catholic Democrats.

I agree that he is vulnerable, I'm not sure I agree with an attack on religious liberty per say. Don't you think that he knows that if he does that he would lose in November. Or do you think that he know's he's gonna lose so he wants to do as much damage as possible? I don't see that.

[phkrause]

It is Obama's assult on the Constitution that has caused me to not want to vote for him.

No Woody I don't buy that, its pretty much because he's a democrat, that's why you won't vote for him. At least stand up for what you believe.

[Dr. Shane]

Don't you think that he knows that if he does that he would lose in November?

I don't know what he is thinking. There is a liberal ideology that has many of the characteristics of religion. Birth control and abortion are of the utmost importance to that ideology. What we have seen is that liberal ideology clash with the religion of Catholicism and Obama choose the side of "political" ideology instead of religious liberty. That is scary to me.