June 03, 2012
Because imposing new environmental regulations will lower prices, or something
Seattle Times editorial, June 1: "Keeping a close eye on Washington state's soaring gas prices"
[Mrs. Gregoire] last week sent letters to all oil refineries in the state asking them to "take all prudent measures to increase production and supplies sufficiently to reduce the costs for consumers on the West Coast."
Gregoire's action puts the oil companies on notice that they are being watched and that there is an expectation they will do something soon about high gas prices.
Seattle Times editorial, June 3
"State stalls on greenhouse-gas emissions at oil refineries
The state Department of Ecology should quit stalling on applying available technology and best practices at Washington oil refineries to curb greenhouse gas emissions
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 03, 2012
04:54 PM | Email This
1. Gregoire's action puts the oil companies on notice that they are being watched and that there is an expectation they will do something soon about high gas prices.
Ahem, Mrs Gregoire, we pay $37.5 cents/GALLON of gas here in WA. I have an expectation YOU will do something soon about high gas prices and your part in them.
We noticed the prices at Arco on the way home tonight: $4.19/g for cash, $4.29/g for credit.
A further note, Mrs Gregoire: The national average for gas when your hero, President Downgrade, took over was $1.82/gal. You don't suppose his absolute hatred of fossil fuels, his refusal to allow exploration/drilling, his vicious and onerous regulations and his manic desperation to get Americans out of automobiles and back into the dark ages have anything to do with it, do you?
2. * Ahem, Mrs Gregoire, we pay $37.5 cents in STATE TAXES/GALLON of gas here in WA
Dontcha love how leftists criticize the refineries for...refining. And then criticizes them for....not refining even more.
4. And I wonder when was the last time a refinery was approved for construction?
5. The Queen couldn't care less about the plight of serfs (let them eat cake). Her only concern is that it is an election year and what a shame it would be if Dimocrats lost POWER and were forced to discontinue their war against people who work, produce, live accountably and pay taxes.
6. Ya votes for Democrats, ya gets the dysfunction, corruption, taxes and PC idiocy that comes with Democrats.
7. Having oil interests in the W N Dakota/E Montana area, we see (by the checks we receive) what can be done with even moderate allowances for environmental impact. We are told the reserves underneath that area could surpass those of S Arabia and we anxiously await rules change by the Romney administration to allow for full exploration and drilling. It just doesn't have to be like this. :)
They call themselves "progressives" and come up with slogans like "Lean Forward" to paper over the long dark history of anti-human policy, genocide and ugliness of their fellow collectivists who love nothing more than pitting us against each other like dogs kept for fighting.
Any fool can see that progress is the last thing they want.
If Dimocrats were truthful, "Bend Over" would replace "Lean Forward".
10. My earlier "Let them eat cake" reference led me to consider a new name for our beloved governor. Marie Antoinette Gregoire, or MA Gregoire, would suit her perfectly, as she continually acts as Washington's corrupt Ma, force feeding us whatever garbage she can ram down our throats, the latest being queer marriage.
Dear Mrs Gregoire, I opened my email this morning and, shock upon surprise, an article that seems written just for you and President Downgrade to digest 10 Ways to Lower Gas Prices
The average price of a gallon of regular gas is now $3.66, and has been decreasing for eight straight weeks. This is causing some of the President Obama's advisors to declare energy prices an irrelevant issue. Political advisor David Axelrod recently tweeted: "Gas prices have been going down for the past six weeks. You think the GOP will blame the President?"
In those six weeks, the only significant energy policy change at the White House was to make new coal production nearly impossible and thus vastly increase the cost of electricity. So, it is hard to assign this slight dip to the president after a record 75 straight weeks of prices exceeding $3.00. However, it is true that the president is not entirely responsible for gas prices.
... After three years of adding regulatory hurdles and blocking exploratory access and development, President Obama's policies are helping keep prices higher than necessary. Having only three percent of federal land available for oil exploration is not a "market condition."
But we are in luck. There are several steps Congress can immediately take, and President Obama can immediately support, that will help alleviate the pain felt at the pump by American families and would create economic growth, and importantly, jobs.
In a new paper, Heritage's Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, Nick Loris lists ten actions Congress could immediately take that would help improve gas prices in the short term and the long term:
So, I wonder Mrs Gregoire, do you and President Downgrade understand the concept of 'actions have consequences'? Will you and President Downgrade read or heed the suggestions? Or are you just suddenly concerned because of political reasons? I have my suspicions of your answers to all those questions....
On a MAJOR, COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC NOTE: There is a
Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally
Friday, June 8 at Noon
US District Court
700 Stewart Street
12. Would this be the same Chris Gregoire who recently proposed a $1.50/barrel tax on state refineries? I'm not sure how that's compatible with her hectoring letters.
13. As usual, government CREATES the problem, and guess what the "solution" always is? That's right, boys and girls: MORE GOVERNMENT.
And Ragnar is onto something; government, at all levels, makes far more on a gallon gas than the oil companies or retailers do. NOW who's being GREEDY?
Stefan, is it too complicated for you to comprehend multiple goals? Does eating tasty food preclude being healthy? Does working preclude sleeping? Does improving energy supply efficiency preclude protecting the environment? Does encouraging private business preclude any funding for government?
How simple-minded do you think your readers are to fall for such black-and-white "reasoning"?
Re 14: Grey explains so much.
Have you ever heard of Aristotle?
A is A.
A thing/idea/concept is right or wrong: it can't be neither it cant be both.
A thing/idea/concept is good or bad: it can't be neither it cant be both.
Addressing the usual Bruce red herring:
No Bruce, energy policy does not have to preclude sound stewardship of our natural resources. But it's all in how you go about it. If you eat too much or too little tasty food the outcome will be poor either way. Should we refrain from blatantly dumping battery acid in to rivers and rely only on oil? No, but while we push toward serious alternatives that would really solve the problem like Thorium, we can't just completely abandon the fuels we are using now such that we drive up gas prices during a depression and make it harder on those who can afford it least.
As with you sending your kids to a private school. It's easy for you to preach. You don't mind paying whatever gas costs per gallon because you can afford to pay. But as an enlightened and caring Democrat, surely you think of all those poor people who you are hypocritically denying the same access to schools and energy to power their vehicles, by voting the way you do?
17. Well One of the reason our prices are higher is that we had an Oil Refinery fire. That just finished getting repaired. But look how politicians scream about high gas prices and blame the Oil company.
Why do they not support building another Oil Refinery her in West Coast area. That would allow the plants to be put done for maintenance and repair. That would help the supply of Gas and Oil to increase and would indirectly cause the price to drop.
But then why would these Democrats support lower prices. Does not the actions in Washington State seem to always to be against the People having cars. The roads do not support the movement and they blame people for not using Mass Transit instead of Driving. Never do things to help we the people get lower prices.
THese policies hurt the poor and unemployed more than those who work. It just shows that the Democrat actions are anti people and Pro their power and special INterests over the good for the State.
Jeff B@15:But as an enlightened and caring Democrat, surely you think of all those poor people who you are hypocritically denying the same access to schools and energy to power their vehicles, by voting the way you do?
You are implying that Liberals "think" through their talking points...they don't. He is the biggest hypocrite who writes here. Telling everyone else what they should or shouldn't value, while doing whatever suits him.
Just a liberal contradiction, ie... irrational and as such, not worth engaging because the assertions are not based on logic.
Steve, but of course that was sarcastic. If a Leftist starts actually thinking about the implications of their philosophy, then he ceases to be a Leftist.
And to your point about Leftist values. Everyone consider that Leftists have it exactly backwards. The Leftist values the useless Occupier who doesn't have a job and who screams and rants to try and get a free college education over the Corporations and Wall Street executives who have created the great products and services that make our lives much better and simpler. Leftists hate real value and champion what it worthless.
Further, consider that it is precisely the abundance of energy that has allowed us to become a civilized people. Rather than scratch and claw each other for meager sustenance and warmth, we can grow an abundance of food and live in heated homes.
The Left of course is working hard to make energy much more difficult to obtain, much more intermittent and unreliable, much more costly and ineffective in the form of battery powered cars, and food much more expensive and difficult to grow. Consider the rise of food and fuel prices attached to the faux environmentalist ethanol craze from the Left and the irrational fears of crop optimization that is labeled inorganic by the Left, but has literally saved billions of lives.
Upside down values... that's the Left.
JeffB writes, "we can't just completely abandon the fuels we are using now such that we drive up gas prices during a depression and make it harder on those who can afford it least."
Wow, what a brilliant point you're making! Please post the list of politicians advocating such a foolish position so that I can be sure to vote against them.
21. Great to hear Bruce. So you are voting against Obama. Welcome to reality.
Ragnar@15, your belief that everything is either all good or all bad is simultaneously ridiculous, pathetic, and revealing. And Aristotle would surely be turning over in his grave at your perversion of his words if he were, through some humungous cosmic joke, a reader of this blog.
David@17, have "the politicans" stopped anyone from building a refinery "in West Coast area" as you claim? Educate me, please!
Steve ranting about schools and Jeff ranting about leftist occupiers, one of you is off topic and the other is off your meds. All my best to you.
23. Jeff@21, when exactly did Obama advocate "completely abandoning the fuels we are using now"? I must have missed the paper that day....
Name one thing that you believe is "sort of" good or "kind of" right or "might be wrong". You see in moral issues I can NOT think of even one. And moral issues are the basis of ALL issues.
I pity your brand of grey that you can't even see that.
Ragnar@24, sure, I'll bite.
Charity can be good or bad.
Religion can be good or bad.
Taxes can be good or bad.
Wars can be good or bad.
Police can be good or bad.
Government regulations can be good or bad.
Democracy can be good or bad.
Capitalism can be good or bad.
These are all things that can be good or bad.
If you're limiting the discussion to "moral issues" (originally you didn't -- you said "A thing/idea/concept is good or bad: it can't be neither it cant be both."), then I guess it depends on your definition of "moral issue". All of the above things involve complex moral issues and can be good or bad -- sometimes both at the same time -- from a moral perspective.
26. I don't understand why bruce is all upset. O-dumber said he wanted higher fuel prices. OK, so now he got his why.
Why are you complaining.
Yes exactly. They can be ONE or the other but they can't be both or neither.
You want something in the MIDDLE: the muddy mucky in the middle gray.
Charity freely given: good
Charity on the backs of taxpayers: bad
Religion freely practiced: good
Religion as oppression: bad
Taxes in the open and with the sanction of the taxpayer: good ... and necessary
Taxes hidden in fees, regulations, surcharges imposed without sanction and daylight bad
Wars for freedom: good
Wars to protect oppresion: bad
Police to the law abiding: good
Police to the law breaking: bad
Government regulation without negating freedom: good
Government regulation that hurts those supposedly protecting: bad
Capitalism GOOD .. they BOTH mean FREEDOM
A person that takes a stand: Good
A mushy in the middle coward: BAD
Here's a recent example of Obama completely abandoning a Fossil Fuel:
Obama Administration EPA head Lisa Jackson had a "very powerful message" that "if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem." In effect, he said, the most recent EPA regulations will make it nearly impossible to construct a coal-fired power plant.
That comes from Curt Spalding, Obama's EPA Region 1 Administrator in a recent speech at Yale.
Jeff@28, even if the new EPA rules prevented building new coal power plants, they wouldn't "abandon coal power", since they don't affect the 42% of US electricity currently generated by burning coal.
Anyway, the new rules make sense:
The Governor's election cannot come too soon. The high gas prices here are not Owebama's fault, at least directly. Whenever the refinery is up and operational again, the prices will go down.
Seems like people should be venting at Olympia about this and get them to take some action !
31. Don't get me wrong, the general election cannot come too soon. The EPA is out of control and like a number of other Federal agencies, it needs to be reeled in, downsized and deregulated. They are the ones who are really responsible for the high gas prices here.
Anyway, the new rules make sense:
Yes, they make PERFECT sense. If you want to destroy an industry, kill jobs, put people into poverty and homelessness and do it all to get the support ($$$) of the flat earth, no-growth, environmental marxist crowd.
No one is expecting even Obama to shutdown all existing plants. That's not a reasonable definition of abandoning fossil fuel. Which is why you are dealing in semantics and obfuscation.
If you can get past those games, it's very clear that Obama has taken a very active stance against fossil fuel by abandoning much of the drilling and permitting needed to support expansion of vast stores of existing natural resources on, in and around US soil.
That is insane policy given that his alternatives, wind and solar are doing nearly nothing to fill the gap at extreme expense and so all that does is force us to buy more fossil fuels offshore, empowering nations that have taken delight in active harm to the US.
This is a primary reason why Obama is going down in November.
Dear Bruce, about 11 years ago, when my son was in his 3rd year at WSU (Go COUGS) he wrote the following.
That is the fundamental, irreducible premise from which every word on this site is based. The Law of Identity: A thing is itself; it cannot be and not be at the same time.
From this premise, all else is derived by logic. Logic, put simply, is non-contradictory identification - and it is our only means of verifying the truth or falsity of our conclusions. Your subjective perceptions are meaningless. Your instincts and feelings and gut reactions are meaningless. Your particular brand of faith is meaningless. Your senses tell you only of a things existence, but what that thing actually is, can only be determined by your rational mind. This process is accomplished by reason. Reason is man's tool that for processing that which he senses. It is the rational beings standard of truth.
The most simple, non-negative definition of Truth is: that which is consistent with reality. And when determining reality, there is no such thing as gray. A thing is itself, nothing else. A=A. It is not, contrary to popular belief, that which is the culmination of our perceptions or our emotions.
Consequently, you will never read the words, "In my opinion" on this site. An opinion is nothing but a vague reference to a feeling. When you opine about something, you're not offering a substantive argument about it. All you're doing is stating your gut, primal, animalistic instincts - and they are no use in determining that which is reflective of reality. "I dislike murder" offers nothing, nothing whatsoever, to the right or wrongness surrounding the issue of murder.
This site is my reasoning. It is the culmination of my knowledge, acquired and judged by my own mind. As such, I do not care whether it offends you. If you disagree with my conclusions, reality is the only judge that can settle the difference. Sometimes I'm wrong. I'm human, I make mistakes. If I do, by all means, correct me. Fix my contradictions by identifying the false premise or incorrect logical step I made. I care only about being right, so I'm quite happy to find out when I'm wrong, but I will not respond to anything but reason.
If something I said makes you feel angry or sad or upset, close the page and go do something else. Do not contact me to tell me about your feelings. You cannot guilt me, shame me, demonize me, or insult me. It simply doesn't work. The man who must resort to such attacks shows only that he doesn't have the rational faculty to refute me. My convictions come from my reasoning, and they're founded on the premise that A=A. If yours do not, I will treat them the way they deserve to be treated.
Do not take this to mean that I can't disagree with you and not be friendly. In fact, some of my closest friends are the people that disagree with me the most. I simply will not trade my integrity for your friendship. I will not accept all or part of an incorrect belief simply because my friend holds it. There is no middle ground to be had, no compromises to be made. I will never "agree to disagree". Why? Because there is no such thing as gray. To rest in the gray area, to try and find some middle ground with someone who is wrong is to accept their falsity into your reasoning, which necessarily renders your reasoning false along with it. To accept a false argument for sake of compromise is nothing short of intellectual fraud. Maintaining a contradiction means denying A=A. It means denying reality. I will not do it. Ever.
To quote the man who gives me something few people do - a person to look up to and aspire to be, "A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False? - Right or Wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have - and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right. A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try and cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest - but if devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of the man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."
True or false. One or zero. Right or wrong. Is or isn't. White or Black. A=A.
There is no such thing as gray.
Bruce @22. And Aristotle would surely be turning over in his grave at your perversion of his words if he were, through some humungous cosmic joke, a reader of this blog.
Actually he's be saddened by your purposeful lack of logic, your denial of reality ... and he'd be dancing that one so young learned him so well.
Enjoy your mushy, mucky, muddy middle GRAY, Bruce. Enjoy your 'any way the wind blows', 'it depends' journey through life.
I like how Bruces only rebuttals come in the form of insults. As in, you MUST be ranting, IF I don't agree with your statement, or more directly expressed: IF I don't have an answer for the obvious point you make, then I just mouth off about you, instead of address the point.
As in: I can't answer for my actions, sending my children to private schools, while advocating that everyone else send theirs to public schools.
So, instead I am accused of ranting. But it's not really a rant Bruce, it's a point of logic. It's the identification of a primary contradiction.
It's an admission, that you don't believe what you say and you don't live by your word.
36. Your son learned well, Ragnar. GOOD JOB!
37. Like they are shaking in their boots and really listen to this "woman"...yea