Home > Frac > Kill O&G Subsidies: Obama’s “Clean Energy” Trend

Kill O&G Subsidies: Obama’s “Clean Energy” Trend

March 6, 2012

“It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. I’m asking Congress: eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away,…Let’s put every single member of Congress on record: *You can stand with oil companies, or you can stand with the American people. You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean energy future.”

According to the administration you are either for *the agenda, or anti-American.

Obama made this riling speech and I understand the politicking behind it. I know this is an election year and President Obama is looking for the opportunity to prove to the committed left that he is still their man, but I wonder, do the committed left know what the Obama administration is doing with the tax dollars he can control? It can be difficult to figure out, considering… In roughly the last month, the president has plugged the potential of shale gas and proposed its inclusion in his “all of the above” energy policy. This, while vowing to remove subsidies for oil and gas companies that he takes credit for leading toward increased domestic production and decreased foreign dependence. If you are confused, that is a good thing. It means that you heard him correctly.

As CBS News reports,

“Last year, a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that was getting renewed attention on Thursday concluded that Obama’s oil and gas proposals ‘may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development, and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation’s foreign oil dependence.’ ”

So at the very least, his policies are projected to decrease exploration, production and development, raise prices and increase the nation’s foreign oil dependence.

Furthermore, I don’t know that President Obama himself fully realizes what it is that he has been communicating lately nor can I believe that he has discovered that the internet and cameras exist…or that his faithful Senate knows that there is a record of where they are sending money.

When Obama takes credit for cutting dependence on foreign oil, he is takes credit for the recession. The reason for a decreasing dependence on foreign oil is due to a recession effected reduction in oil usage. People spend less when they have less money. Our production is up because of Hydraulic Fracturing and shale plays. The latter has nothing to do with this administration.

The part of the playback that I hear the most clearly is when our president says

“Let’s put every single member of Congress on record: You can stand with oil companies, or you can stand with the American people. You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean energy future.”

But, if I were able to stand before the administration to question them personally, if I were allowed to sit across a desk from them, I would ask the following questions: “What does standing with the American people look like and why are you qualified to provide the definition? Why is there a commitment to an energy source that continually wastes money? Why does this administration pick and choose which interviews it is willing to participate in and the nature of the questions asked? ”

And where have they elected to send that money?…The answer is not “clean energy” because that would imply that energy was actually, well, created. The answer is not that simple.

When Spokesman Jay Carney said  “We have a choice to make as a nation, because we will be buying renewable energy products, you know, whether it’s wind, biofuel, solar, whether alternative — rather, you know, advanced battery technology, we’re going to be buying that stuff. Do we want to buy it with a stamp on it that says ‘Made in America’ or are we going to buy it from the Chinese or from other countries?” somebody needed to provide an answer to his question by presenting him with reports showing “clean energy” investments failing and “clean energy” failing in general while explaining to he and his boss why they are failing.

We won’t have a “Made in America” stamp on “clean energy” products as long as China can completely destroy us with their pricing. They can provide solar panels far cheaper than we can produce them. The government attempted to enable US manufacturers to compete but is wasn’t enough, they still failed.

That is why Solyndra, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Spectrawatt, and Energy Conversion Devices Inc. have all filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

So, not only did the market determine that it would buy cheaper panels from China, the US Government decided to back failing companies through guaranteed loans. What does that mean? It means the US decided to play the role of bank and instead of getting a return through interest paid on a loan, they got companies that went bankrupt so they failed as a bank and as an investor. The information is available.

With all of the attention given to alternative forms of energy, which Mr. Carney provided in list form, one would expect that the government look to those with experience in the matter for a lesson. The UK is now in the throes of learning that Wind Energy is a sham. According to that article by Matt Ridley:
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide. 
Not only that, the price of maintenance is cost prohibitive. American made solar panels are a proven waste of tax payer dollars while battery powered cars, our current administration’s latest champ, from Fiskers and Tesla cost $96,000 and $57,000 apiece, respectively.
This isn’t the whole picture. According to ABC news, both Fiskers and Tesla both received half a billion in loans. Joe Biden said of this allocation of tax dollars, “This is seed money that will return back to the American consumer in billions and billions and billions of dollars in good new jobs.”
So far, Fiskers hasn’t produced a single vehicle in the United States. They have a production facility in Finland because it is too expensive to assemble their $96,000 dollar-car stateside; this is something that the US government knew when they approved the half billion dollar loan to the electric car maker. According to their CEO and namesake Henrik Fisker “We are not in the business of failing, we are in the business of winning so we make the right decision for the business…that’s why we went to Finland.”
As for Tesla, their report to the US Securities and Exchange Commission said that the company (Tesla) expects “…continuing losses for at least the foreseeable future.”
Their VP said “While expensive ($57,000), there is a very robust market.”
When ABC’s Brian Doss challenged this by saying “These are cars for wealthy Americans, not for average Americans.” Tesla’s VP, Diarmuid O’Connell responded by saying “Well, I don’t know how you define wealthy.”
I have a simple definition. When the average wage for a nation is $41,673.83 as of 2010 and you are not the VP of a company plugging a product, $57,000 or roughly $16,000 more money than the average worker will make in a year, is a car for a wealthy American.
A billion dollars worth of loans went to electric car companies who either build their cars in Finland or expect losses for the foreseeable future; and they charge either $96,000 or $57,000 apiece for these vehicles.
Is this a trend for our investment practices in “clean energy”?
What normal American can pay for that? Is it worth a billion dollars worth of government loans to find out?
Meanwhile, back at the farm in the Shale Plays. We have natural gas in abundance cheaper than we can find it anywhere on earth. Why won’t we use it here to create more jobs? Shale Gas currently supports over 600,000 jobs.
There are your “billions and billions and billions of dollars in good new jobs” Mr. Biden. They are already there, making money and being jobs.
Is this the industry for which this administration wants to remove subsidies?
How about we eliminate “outrageous” and “inexcusable” waste to multiple failing programs?
I say “Oppose wasting tax dollars and stand with the American people.” There is your real choice.
%d bloggers like this: