Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Why do people blame gas prices on Presidents?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Diesel350z, Mar 9, 2022.

  1. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 8, 2007
    While it didn't increase because of Biden it wouldn't have been any greater were he not the president.
     
  2. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    20,968
    9,193
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    disingenuous headline. All they did was actually complete the environmental review which they are required to do by law, as if those matter anymore..

    no firewall
    Administration weighs options for Alaska drilling project that would produce 629M barrels of oil | The Hill

    The Biden administration is weighing several options for the future of a major proposed drilling project in Alaska that could produce massive quantities of oil and significantly contribute to climate change.

    The administration released an environmental review that said that at its peak, the project could produce more than 180,000 barrels of oil per day and produce a total of 629 million barrels overall over the course of a 30-year duration.
    .............................
    The review contains several “alternatives” for the ultimate decision that the administration may make on the project including blocking it, allowing it to proceed as sponsor ConocoPhillips proposed and shrinking the project.

    The document doesn’t list a “preferred” option, and a spokesperson for the department confirmed that all of them would be given equal consideration.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    8,074
    383
    298
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Inn theory perhaps.

    Do you think a company makes long term plans based on what a President says or does?
    It's hard to imagine they don't, Biden spent much of his campaign attacking the oil industry, does it make sense that a company in that sector would make plans to expand and spend billions knowing that Biden's take has been anti oil?
    If my business was directly in the cross hairs I would be hunkering down and making sure what I was spending on R&D was locked in for an ROI.
     
  4. tjenkins78

    tjenkins78 Junior

    134
    20
    108
    Jul 2, 2022
    3.79 out by my parents in FL
     
  5. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Dec 9, 2010
    And yet, somehow, the wind energy industry continued massive expansions throughout the Trump administration, despite his claims of Windmill cancer and the like. What does that tell us?
     
  6. Tjgators

    Tjgators Premium Member

    3,823
    341
    278
    Apr 3, 2007
    The folks in Texas are not really enjoying that windmill energy right now. They are screwed.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  7. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Dec 9, 2010
    How so? You realize that the failure last year was primarily due to natural gas plants failing, right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    8,074
    383
    298
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    a) The Admin didn't make it hard for windmills to be built.
    b) The wind energy consortium knew he was talking out of his ass.

    You really can't compare the anti fossil fuel movement to the "anti" windmill movement can you?
     
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Dec 9, 2010
    A. They didn't? They didn't implement huge tariffs on their materials?

    US Wind Boom Faces New Threat From Proposed Tower Tariffs

    B. Again, this goes to my point that Democrats are treated as adults while Republicans are held to a lower standard. What Trump says doesn't matter. Only what Biden says.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    8,074
    383
    298
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL

    a)From your link.
    "Earlier this month, a group of domestic tower manufacturers asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to impose stiff tariffs on several major tower-exporting countries — Canada, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam. They would come on top of existing tariffs on towers and other wind-related equipment from China, as well as the Trump administration’s multicountry steel tariffs already putting upward price pressure on U.S. wind projects"

    "The group pushing for the tariffs, known as the Wind Tower Trade Coalition, includes U.S. producers such as Arcosa Wind Towers (formerly Trinity) and Broadwind Towers, according to the news agency Canadian Press.

    The group claims foreign manufacturers are dumping towers into the U.S. and receiving improper subsidies at home, resulting in job losses and depressed profits among American producers.


    Domestically manufactured towers are more expensive than imported equipment, and the homemade supply is insufficient to cover the near-term boom, WoodMac’s Shreve noted."

    The tariffs were not designed to stop wind mill expansion but to increase the use of made in America wind mill components as the industry was alleging the dumping by importing countries.

    So the US windmill industry actually asked for the tariffs, that wasn't the Admin being anti wind, it was being pro US production.
    You see the difference right?

    b) You didn't have Trump saying he was going to kill the wind farm industry while he was campaigning so it's just a wee bit different but you know that...
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Dec 9, 2010
    Yeah, tiny manufacturers asked the government to raise the cost of installing turbines to produce energy. And they did so. I am sure you would be declaring tariffs on all oil shipped into the country to be an anti-fossil fuel move, right? Or a tariffs on all the supplies to drill? Would that be anti-fossil fuel?

    He was out on the campaign trail claiming that it caused cancer...and killed birds...and didn't work...and lowered your houses value...yeah, he was campaigning on how terrible the industry was.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  12. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    8,074
    383
    298
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    I wouldn't claim tariffs on steel from China were anti (insert industry).


    Trump chiding about windmills killing birds etc is a far cry from this....
    Joe Biden: "We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels" - Americans for Tax Reform (atr.org)

    Biden said:

    We are going to get rid of fossil fuels.”

    Referring to protestors who interrupted the event, Biden said:

    “That’s okay, these guys are okay, they want to do the same thing that I want to do, they want to phase out fossil fuels and we’re going to phase out fossil fuels.”
    Biden also endorsed a carbon tax on the American people, which will force households to pay much higher gasoline, heating, and cooling bills.

    Biden has also endorsed a fracking ban. If elected, Biden’s fracking ban will devastate the economies of several battleground states, as noted by Steve Moore in the Wall Street Journal"

    Now certainly you can say Biden was just playing to the far left enviro wing of the party, but to compare his stance publicly to Trump snarking about windmills is really a stretch.


    Biden: “I Guarantee You We’re Going To End Fossil Fuel” - YouTube
     
  13. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Dec 9, 2010
    So then if Biden does something Pro-Environment that might have a negative impact on fossil fuels, that isn't anti-fossil fuels? It seems like raising the price of something is either anti-industry or not.

    First, there has been no fracking ban. Second, you forgot to include the time frame on that phase out. Third, do you think Trump was going to keep supporting the wind cancer machines long-term?
     
  14. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 8, 2007
    A far as fracking is concerned this is what Biden said in August 2020.
    Joe Biden: 'I am not banning fracking' - CNNPolitics
    While he may have had a longer term goal of ending the practice in no way did he support an immediate ban.
    And Biden's proposal to end carbon emissions/fossil fuels was a goal he hoped would be achieved by 2050.
    Biden unveils $1.7 trillion climate plan to end U.S. carbon emissions by 2050
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2022
  15. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    20,968
    9,193
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    wow, still $4.45 in Ft Myers/Naples
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    7,824
    745
    3,218
    Apr 3, 2007
    It’s literally been a problem for 40-50 years spanning Presidents from both sides. There hasn’t been a new refinery with significant production built since 1978. No new refineries were built during Bush II and only one during Trump’s term versus five during Obama’s terms. Even if we accepted your premise no decisions have been made based on Biden’s policies that would affect current fuel prices. These are capital intensive projects that require years to plan and set up financing.
     
  17. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    20,968
    9,193
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    that the subsidies continued in spite of the rhetoric? presidents will come and go, it is the beauracracy that has momentum and staying power that must be respected.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    20,968
    9,193
    3,443
    Aug 26, 2008
    if only they hadn't chosen to isolate themselves from the national grid and the reliability standards that come with it..they screwed themselves and their elected regulators lubed up the citizens and held them down so the power companies could screw them
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  19. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    5,723
    211
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    Tariffs raise prices to the end user, if you tariff “foreign imports” of components involved in making windmills/wind farms in practical terms that is just as good as being anti-wind. It’s raising the prices to produce wind energy.

    It should also be pointed out, Trump actually was pretty openly hostile towards wind energy. Part of his schtick is deranged ranting about how windmills are eyesores and how many birds they kill. If he understood tariffs are economically damaging to wind production (he probably doesn’t given his overall love of tariffs in all industry and the ludicrous idea that “trade wars are easy), he’d likely view destruction of wind industry as a win-win anyway.