Welcome to the May “Leaders” issue of NorthBay biz. This month’s magazine focuses on individuals and companies who are leaders in their industries. The stories analyze leadership and attempt to discern the sometimes elusive qualities incumbent for success. As you’ll discover, the skills employed are diverse and manifest themselves in many ways. Please enjoy all the stories, special features and columns this month in the North Bay’s only locally owned business publication—NorthBay biz.
Speaking of leadership, reading everyday headlines and listening to presidential speeches and solemn pronouncements from the Secretary of Energy leaves me wondering what’s happened to ours? Has the country completely lost its way? Are we so easily lead down a path contrary to our self-interests? Has PC delusional thinking gotten to the point where pursuing policies that will ultimately reduce the nation to third-world status is viewed as a good thing? In pursuit of a utopian energy fantasy, it seems common sense has been abandoned.
Gas prices have risen to more than $4 per gallon locally. So, it now costs more than $70 every time you fill your car’s gas tank in California. An average two-car household will spend approximately $6,000 for the luxury of driving each of their cars 12,000 miles per year. However, to this administrations way of thinking, high energy prices are the solution, not the problem. This isn’t conjecture on my part—it’s stated policy.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stated in a speech, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe.” (Looks like he can check that one off the to-do list.) In a recent speech, President Obama declared, “…the new oil finds off Brazil…(means) Brazil wants to be a major supplier of new stable sources of energy, and I’ve told her that the United States wants to be a major customer.” Think about that statement. Why don’t we want to be a supplier instead of just a customer? The administration has actively prohibited this exact same development in our own waters, but has no problem paying another country for something that, if we were to do ourselves, would create jobs and help revive the economy here. Instead, we choose to not create jobs, not help the economy and pay more for imported oil.
Cheap, locally produced energy frees the individual, increases domestic security and powers the economy. Apparently those benefits aren’t worthwhile if it means, in exchange, the government loses some control over our lives in the process. Because if there’s one thing the current administration wants above all else, it’s complete control over all facets of our lives—from what and how much we eat, to how we heat and cool our homes, to what we drive and how it’s powered—there’s no detail too small to escape its enlightened interest.
Let’s take a look at the much-ballyhooed, government-sponsored social engineering project, GM’s Chevy Volt. “The car of the future—now!” as it is promoted by its supporters. I mean, shouldn’t everyone be rushing out to buy a $41,000 electric “toy” car that gets an amazing 100 miles between charges? Currently, there’s a $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit available to every buyer. I guess that incentive hasn’t proved too valuable, because Chevy isn’t at all happy with its Volt sales so far this year. It’s sold 321 units in January and 281 in February nationwide. 2011 production called for 30,000 cars to be built this year and 45,000 in 2012. Well, because the pace of sales projects to only 3,600 Volts to be sold this year, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow wants to turn the year end $7,500 tax credit into a $7,500 instant rebate. Some clever beltway insiders are affectionately calling her plan “Cash for Clunkers II.” The point, however, can hardly be missed. Just how far is the government willing to go to get people to buy an inferior product at an exorbitant price? If the Chevy Volt can’t compete in the marketplace on its own merits, why should taxpayers be forced to underwrite yet another attempt at social engineering?
There’s been absolutely nothing of substance done to address our current energy needs. There are hundreds of billions of barrels of oil waiting to be recovered in the United States. (Trillions of barrels if oil shale is included.) Enough to replace all the imported OPEC oil for almost 100 years.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama stated, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can…it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” With that warning, our enormous coal reserves capable of clean energy generation lies largely untapped. And it never ceases to amaze me how the progressive Europhile elite who love to emulate the command and control economies of Europe just can’t seem to get on the nuclear power bandwagon when as much 80 percent of electricity is nuclear-generated in parts of Europe.
Anyway, in a nation that currently gets less than 3 percent of its energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric, trying to mandate that we abandon traditional energy sources—no matter the cost, or the state of technology—is extremely unrealistic.
Where’s the coherent policy? What’s the transition strategy? With no game-changing technological breakthroughs and at tremendous additional costs in the midst of the worst recession in 80 years, this administration’s policy is “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” It’s as if just wishing will make it so. This is the result when ideology trumps common sense.
Rational people can only shake their heads in disbelief and amazement and ask, what are they thinking? Better yet, they should ask, are they thinking at all?
That’s it for now. Enjoy this month’s magazine.
