Energy Sec changes stance

[BanginJimmy]

on gas prices. Now that he is working for the govt, he no longer thinks that the US should pay European prices.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/13/chu-backpedals-on-call-for-higher-gas-prices/




"You think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher?" the president asked. "Is that -- is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?"



Chu noted that he had made the comments before he was in government, just a couple of months before Obama won election and Chu was nominated to his current post.

So why would a president nominate this guy for the position if it wasnt a position the new admin agreed with? He made the comments right before the election so its not like no one knew about it.

[.blank cd]

Chu was hired because he's big on trying to lessen dependence on fossil fuel, and on to other renewable sources of energy, which is a big thing with Obama.

I facepalmed when I heard Gingrich blast exxons algae solution and Santorum slamming global warming. I think a lot of these candidates are living in a fantasy world where oil is an infinite renewable resource and global warming isn't happening.

[bu villain]

on gas prices. Now that he is working for the govt, he no longer thinks that the US should pay European prices.

Maybe being involved at the highest level of government has given him a different perspective. He still thinks we need to be weaned off our oil dependence but maybe he is rethinking the best way to do that. What is wrong with changing your mind as your information and life experiences change?


So why would a president nominate this guy for the position if it wasnt a position the new admin agreed with? He made the comments right before the election so its not like no one knew about it.

Probably because Chu is very capable and they share the major goal of increasing renewables. You don't have to agree with every policy to serve effectively in an administration.

[BanginJimmy]

Chu was hired because he's big on trying to lessen dependence on fossil fuel, and on to other renewable sources of energy, which is a big thing with Obama.

I facepalmed when I heard Gingrich blast exxons algae solution and Santorum slamming global warming. I think a lot of these candidates are living in a fantasy world where oil is an infinite renewable resource and global warming isn't happening.


Nothing wrong with advancing technology with renewable energies, just dont spend my cash to do it. None of these non-fossil fuel concepts are less than a decade away from being ready for mainstream use.

You will find that most people dont believe in man made global warming. I've read dozens of articles on both sides of this argument and havent read anything from the pro side that even comes close to conclusive.


Maybe being involved at the highest level of government has given him a different perspective. He still thinks we need to be weaned off our oil dependence but maybe he is rethinking the best way to do that. What is wrong with changing your mind as your information and life experiences change?



Probably because Chu is very capable and they share the major goal of increasing renewables. You don't have to agree with every policy to serve effectively in an administration.



Absolutely nothing wrong with changing your stance as you learn more. My biggest issue with this is both Obama and Chu only changed their stance because of political reasons. They actually said just that. Obama said it would be stupid to want higher gas prices in an election year. Only a couple weeks ago Chu did an interview with Fox news and he was asked about it and he sidestepped the question twice.

[.blank cd]

Nothing wrong with advancing technology with renewable energies, just dont spend my cash to do it. None of these non-fossil fuel concepts are less than a decade away from being ready for mainstream use.

You will find that most people dont believe in man made global warming. I've read dozens of articles on both sides of this argument and havent read anything from the pro side that even comes close to conclusive.Dont spend your cash to do it? Your cash is gonna be spent on it whether you like it or not. You can stop buying gasoline or paying your home energy bills. Then none of your money will go progressive technology.

Apparently you haven't been reading too much lately. Anthropomorphic climate change is accepted by more than 98% of scientists. 'Tis unequivocally conclusive, and more than 60% of the general public accept man made climate change. I haven't taken into account the opinions of non-scientist political pundits (from either side). Of course, who asks a plumber how to bake a cake? Lol.

[BanginJimmy]

Of course, who asks a plumber how to bake a cake? Lol.

The same people that ask a plumber if their drains need cleaned.

When your livelyhood depends on a set of facts, you will make sure you find those facts. No one purposefully works themselves out pf a job.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[bu villain]

Absolutely nothing wrong with changing your stance as you learn more. My biggest issue with this is both Obama and Chu only changed their stance because of political reasons. They actually said just that. Obama said it would be stupid to want higher gas prices in an election year. Only a couple weeks ago Chu did an interview with Fox news and he was asked about it and he sidestepped the question twice.

The article, Chu states:
"When I became secretary of energy I represented the U.S. government and I think that right now in this economic (http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/#) -- very slow return -- that we need to have, these prices well could affect the comeback of our economy and we're very worried about that," said Chu. "And so, of course, we don't want the price of gasoline to go up. We want it to go down."

That seems like a reasonable response. He still believes higher gas prices would help us move toward energy independence but that's not as important as helping the current econony get back on track. So he has two values and right now the economic value trumps the renewables value. Also, could you provide a link to where Obama said he wanted higher gas prices because that wasn't stated in the article?

[BanginJimmy]

The article, Chu states:
"When I became secretary of energy I represented the U.S. government and I think that right now in this economic (http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/#) -- very slow return -- that we need to have, these prices well could affect the comeback of our economy and we're very worried about that," said Chu. "And so, of course, we don't want the price of gasoline to go up. We want it to go down."

That seems like a reasonable response. He still believes higher gas prices would help us move toward energy independence but that's not as important as helping the current econony get back on track. So he has two values and right now the economic value trumps the renewables value.

If that is the case, why didnt he say that when asked when he was on Fox News? Like I said, he sidestepped that question twice.





Also, could you provide a link to where Obama said he wanted higher gas prices because that wasn't stated in the article?

I never said he did. His policies do point in that direction. Remember when he said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry?

[bu villain]

If that is the case, why didnt he say that when asked when he was on Fox News? Like I said, he sidestepped that question twice.

I don't know. I just read the article where he directly answered. I didn't see the interview where he sidestepped. Maybe the administration asked him to not discuss his personal feelings when they run counter to his job directives.


I never said he did. His policies do point in that direction. Remember when he said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry?

You said "Obama and Chu only changed their stance because of political reasons". I thought you were saying they shared the stance that we should try to increase the price of gas. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[BanginJimmy]

You said "Obama and Chu only changed their stance because of political reasons". I thought you were saying they shared the stance that we should try to increase the price of gas. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Simple misunderstanding as I could have clarified better. I meant that Obama only thought of gas prices is a political sense, not as an everyday issue.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[cyb593]

I don't see a reason at all for $5 dollar a gallon gas. That is ridiculous no matter where our economy is. People wouldn't be able to get to a job with $5 dollar gallon of gas. Energy advances will happen without lobbyist(no matter what side) messing with lawmakers(sleezy politicians)and the with the free market at work as all technological advances have in the our society. Electric, hydro i dont give a shit what it is as long as it gets me there and it isn't 100k for a damn car such as most of the electric cars Obama is pushing for and fueling it is cheap. Even the leaf is almost 40k. It needs to be affordable and cheap to fuel and probably be nice to have the same amount of power out of the cars as we do with gasoline. Then i doubt anyone would care.