Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    March 20, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Yeah, get us off of that evil fossil, and either global cooling, global warming, climate change damaging fuel.

    And get us on clean old electricity. The product of tons of coal being burned, which is clean and doesn't do any harm to the environment. And helps out baracks buddy Warren Buffett (the billionaire) that can't pay is secretary a living wage. But, is begging to pay more in taxes, but, then hires attorneys to prevent him from paying those taxes. Either way, Warren Buffetts railroads that he purchased will make alot of money hauling coal or oil across this country.

    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 19, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Personally I want an Algae fueled truck. Isn't Maverick offering Algae now or maybe its Harts? I forget. Maybe we can fuel our cars and trucks off 'love'. Sounds like something a liberal would fund doesn't it. Barack doesn't exactly have a shining track record of funding green energy companies...or perhaps wasting billions on green energy companies is better stated. I get the feeling that giving Barack money for green energy research is akin to emptying your wallet into the toilet and flushing. Hey - maybe a 'cold fusion' car!!! I guess Utah sort of got a black eye from that one a few years back so better steer clear for now. Electric cars are GREAT....well I guess you still have to charge the darn battery and that takes evil electricity and that means a generator is involved and some sort of fuel to turn the generator which means coal or nuclear or hydro.... ok never mind. I know - a WIND powered car!! Democrat's would run a car forever with all the hot air they generate.

  • YourMom Cedar City, UT
    March 16, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    What are we going do when all of the whales are gone? What will we burn in our lamps?

  • YourMom Cedar City, UT
    March 16, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    So where does electricity come from? Does it grow on an electricity tree?

  • Spikey Layton, UT
    March 16, 2013 2:41 p.m.


    How do you wean a non-living thing off of anything. That's liberal speak, you can't wean a car off oil! He thinks we don't see through him. But I do.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 16, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    Pretty sure Mt. St Helens did the same thing.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 16, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Airnaut, if you want to be credible, please use proper grammar. Case in point, "make up stories and invaded Oil rich Middle Eastern countries."

    I would have said, "make up stories and invade oil rich Middle Eastern countries".

    Seriously, if we were taking Iraq's oil, which frankly we ought to do to pay us back for all the money squandered there, our gas prices would be much lower due to that oil flooding the U.S. market.

    Since we are not doing that, your comment is not valid.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 16, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic, since when is the Washington Post a reliable source for unbiased info?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 15, 2013 7:07 p.m.


    The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort made to reduce the evil beast,-carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY. I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo - think about it.--What humans are doing is very little to nothing.

    Fools are people who believe lies.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    March 15, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    Taters: Yes, but...I love it. I am "technically" correct also, and gas prices also doubled under Bush. Gas was just recently down to $2.60 here in Colorado. Gas prices fluctuate, and have for a long, long time. So unless you can provide some concrete data that somehow Obama's policies have produced high gas prices, then it's plain rhetoric.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 15, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    RedShirt said:
    "To "Happy Valley Heretic" I don't think you understand what the question was.
    Obama wants to wean vehicles off oil. What does Mr. Obama plan to replace the oil derived fuel with?
    Right now there is no viable alternative to oil. How do you plan an weaning that child from milk to steak without a plan?"

    From the article: "over the next decade to expand research into electric cars and biofuels to wean automobiles off gasoline."

    I don't think you understand "a decade of research" is a plan vs. Your NO PLAN, do nothing about it until it's all gone.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 15, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    Happy Valley
    I answered my own question without realizing it? I asked what BO is proposing we use to replace oil. Where did I answer that question? What did I say BO was proposing we use.

    reading comprehension problems?

    I guess you missed the point of my comment to bebyeb; it was bebyebe who was essentially saying go ahead and stop eating and die because bebyebe did not say what BO was going to use to replace the oil.

    As noted in my original comment, wean implies replacing one thing gradually with something else. We are STILL WAITING for the BO apologists to say what BO is proposing we replace oil with. Do you know? bebyebe apparently does not because he/she/it has certainly not said so.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    For the last 35 years I've been pushing for more research into other proven and potential alternate sources of energy, like bio-fuels (from non-food plants), geothermal, wave-motion, advanced nuclear and several other constant (meaning not reliant on very variable energy sources, like wind or solar), virtually inexhaustible forms of non-fossil energy.

    My principal motivation is **not** an attempt for some fanciful effect on global "climate change" (many past world-wide ice ages have convinced me our planet will change plenty with and/or without our "help"), but rather a simple desire to not be so "all our eggs in one basket" dependent on oil. Particularly when we are still so reliant on oil from some very inhospitable sources (Chavez's welcome departure notwithstanding).

    I suspect with our enormous existing oil/gasoline-based infrastructure, something similar (bio-fuel, probably algae) will be our best first bet. But we need to continue to expand the alternatives.

    Like the scout motto says, we need to, "Be Prepared".

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    March 15, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    To xscribe:

    Yes, gas prices did top out at over $4 per gallon in June 2008. But it was a very temporary spike caused by extenuating circumstances. And by election day in November 2008, when Obama was voted in, gas prices had fallen back down to $1.61 per gallon, closer to the $2 range they were traditionally in before that temporary price spike that you are trying to argumentatively exploit.
    So Mountainman really was (is) correct. Gas prices actually have doubled since Obama was first voted in as president. Google "historical gas price data" and it can easily be verified. Gasbuddy.com has a data graph chart that is simple enough to read. Try it.

    Environmentalists are strong supporters of Obama. He is beholding to them. Their agenda is for much less usage of gas and oil. The easiest way to accomplish that is to have consumer gas prices go up substantially, even though it significantly hurts the economy whenever it does. Hopefully, reasonable priced alternatives will become more readily available before current escalating gas prices get too far out of hand. Government interference is not the answer, nor will it ever be.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 15, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" I don't think you understand what the question was.

    Let me rephrase it and hopefully you will get it this time.

    Obama wants to wean vehicles off oil. What does Mr. Obama plan to replace the oil derived fuel with?

    Right now there is no viable alternative to oil. How do you plan an weaning that child from milk to steak without a plan?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 15, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    lost in DC said:
    wean vehicles of oil. OK, replace that with........?????
    you wean a child off his mother's milk and replace that with cereals and other baby foods, then more solid foods, and eventually regular foods."

    You answered your own question without realizing it. WEAN does not mean stop eating or driving it means a calculated transition to more efficient or different energy source.

    All or None, Black or White there are spaces between for some people.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 15, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    One of Obama's helpers should tell him we have no more money for gambling.
    We already spent it on Solyndra.

    Now if we were to stop spending money to implement Obamacare...........never mind.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 15, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    Perhaps Obama has seen too many Star Wars movies. Feels we can make cars that float on air. Hmm?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 15, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    First become energy independent by opening up ALL public lands to oil production .... this will create a boom for the economy. The next step is to look into new technology for cars that doesn't require oil. Obama is always backwards on his plans.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 15, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    you did not answer Mr. Scott's question.

    wean vehicles of oil. OK, replace that with........?????

    you wean a child off his mother's milk and replace that with cereals and other baby foods, then more solid foods, and eventually regular foods.

    You are telling us, essentially, stop eating completely. You know what happens when you do that, don't you? you DIE!

    We'll give you another chance.

    With what is BO proposing we replace oil?

    BTW, Nissan and other companies are already selling alternative fuel vehicles. They did it WITHOUT taxpayer money from BO.

    Happy Valley
    As Redshirt pointed out, those big, bad, EVIL, SATANIC oil companies are the ones spending the most on alternative fuels research. Are you saying you want the government to subsidize them even MORE?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    March 15, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    The private sector... private enterprises... have always, and will always be more effective and less wasteful than the government in any kind of enterprise or endevour. History has shown that to be the case in hundreds and thousands of examples and is statistically irrefutable.

    Over 3 years later, more than one-third of Obama's $800 billion stimulus spending package is still unaccounted for. No one can tell where that money went or what it was used for. If that had been a private sector project, every dollar would be accounted for. The IRS holds private businesses to a much higher standard than it does government spending. Therefore, it's not sad at all (as one commenter said) that private businesses are spending much more for alternative fuel research than the government is. Much more will be accomplished and in a much shorter time.

    There are already huge incentives in place that are causing thousands of big-rig trucks and buses to be in the process of converting to CNG (compressed natural gas). America has more natural gas reserves than any other country in the world. Big changes are already moving forward within the automotive and nuclear industries.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 15, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    Chris B: Subsidies and Tax breaks for Oil companies in excess of Billions and billions while they report record profits is the republican welfare for the wealthy that the above posters want to remain status quo. Nothing new to see here.

    Why are oil companies investing in new tech if we have the nearly unlimited supply that I keep hearing about? Maybe they can see the writing on the wall. Also they receive grants and tax deductions to do that research so they get even more of the peoples money.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    March 15, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    Mountanman: Gas prices in June '08 were $4.08. That's above what it is now. I, too, can pick and choose a number to support my beliefs!

    m.g.: So is that it? We found oil, and we have gone as far as we can go for alternatives? There's nothing else out there that can be used? You and I will probably never know, but I'm betting the future will find it!

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 15, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    Re: Bebyebe

    Again. How is he going to do that? He says he wants to, but WHAT is he doing to accomplish that goal? You can say we want to wean vehicles off of oil, but what fuel do you run them with? And if you say electricity, then remember, it comes from either a nuclear, or a petroleum based generating plant. You see, Obama talks a good game, but when put into reality it doesn't work.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 11:36 a.m.


    "Please tell us what they are"

    My pleasure!


    Private sector.

    Where hundreds of millions of taxpayer money isn't wasted.

    Did you really not understand that?


  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 15, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    The sad thing is that the Oil companies are already investing more into alternate fuels than the government is.

    According to the AOL article "Top Five Oil Company-Backed Renewable Energy Ventures" you have more money being spent by Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell all spend tons more on renewable fuels. Those companies know that they cannot exist forever on drilling and are looking for cheaper alternatives.

    What should be asked is why is the government looking at competing with private business, or who is the money going to?

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    March 15, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    "What would you have us do in the meantime while we are developing these so called new energy sources?"

    Wean vehicles off of oil which is what the president is proposing.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 15, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Re: airnaut

    Would you please tell us just what Obamas "clean, renewable and self reliant energy policies" are. Because, aside from those words, I don't know how they translate into keeping up with our energy needs. And by the way, drilling is the only way to get at the oil and gas that will be necessary for the forseeable future. What would you have us do in the meantime while we are developing these so called new energy sources? However I do agree with you about Middle-East wars. I don't want this country to have to rely on any of those OPEC countries for our survival. That's why I want our own sources developed.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    March 15, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Oil will still run out regardless of how many years worth is left.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 15, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    @m.g.scott Great thinking and right on brother!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 15, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    GOP energy policy --

    make up stories and invaded Oil rich Middle Eastern countries,
    Drill baby drill,
    Burn baby burn.

    BTW - If you have something new, better, or different than Obama's clean, renewable, and self reliant energy policies --
    Please tell us what they are.


    be silently content while you keep loosing election after election.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic
    nice reliance on bigoted stereotypes there

    Most conservatives are fine with alternative energy (I enthusiastically support it)- they just think private industry is best equipped to finance, develope and profit from it - not an Obama administration with a horrific financial track record

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 15, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Re: Bebyebe

    Some reports say there is as much as 200 years of known oil reserves in just our own little country. Oil is no where near running out in this world. Just the desire to get it.

    Re: mohokat

    You got me to thinking. Maybe we should be happy when Obama is out on the golf course. That would mean he is spending less time figuring out ways to spend our money. I think I'll send him some golf balls for his birthday. A day on the course is probably worth a billion dollars of saved revenue.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    What he should be doing is weaning himself off of the taxpayers backs.

    @worf also hide his golf clubs.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 15, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    We could have given away $2 Trillion in alternative fuel R&D and STILL been ahead of spending for the 12 years of war for Middle Eastern Oil.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    The oil will run out. It's better to be prepared rather than stick your head in the sand and hope it doesn't happen while your still alive.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    The only energy that could replace oil for all our needs is nuclear for electricity, and hydrogen for motors. Work on the hydrogen engine and maybe we will have something. As for solar, unless technology can develope a much more efficient solar cell, then it will never be practical for car or trucks. Oil and natural gas, both come from drilling, will continue to be the only way to run an industrial world. And, do we really need another Solyndra?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 15, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Easy way to conserve oil, lower pollution, and reduce spending,----Keep Air Force One on the ground.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    happy valley,

    And would those that declared bankruptcy and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars be in the clean energy industry, perhaps?

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    March 15, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    The amount spent in the department of energy has increased from $24B in 2008 to $40B in 2012. Which is a 40% increase in 4 years. Compare that to an increase from $20B in 2001 to the $24B in 2008. A 16% increase. Although wind and solar energy is a cleaner way to go, it is just not cost effective and the tax payers cannot afford to subsidize the industry. There have been large increases in funding to multiple departments which has only contributed to the deficit and is unsustainable.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    How dare he think about the future, the gall to believe that we won't be able to burn oil forever.
    Doesn't he understand? All the republicans want to do is wait, and kick that can down the road.

    The Grumpy Old Poobahs are dying off, and not being replaced with the head in the sand "Man has no influence on the environment" Pseudo Cleric/Conservative principals.

    According to the Washington Post. Of the 33 companies that received 1705 loan guarantees, only three have declared bankruptcy.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 15, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Obama already tried that: Solyndra, Satcon and about 50 other green energy federally subsidized failures! In the meantime, gasoline is double the price that it was under the Bush Administration. If green energy is ever to be successful, it will be the private sector that will succeed with it, not the government! All Obama has done is throw more taxpayer money after bad, failure after failure.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 15, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Maybe he should have used the money he gave to all his "green" pals which have promised great things and after taking billions of taxpayer dollars have gone bankrupt.

    We are broke, deeply in debt, and cannot pay our current bills. It is insane to even propose to squander money on nonsense like this.

    Anyone who disagrees is welcome to set up their own business to do this stuff, with their own money, or whatever they can con investors out of, but not a penny of tax money should be used.

    "The trouble wish socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."