Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Who's Got an Energy Gimmick Now?
Presumed Democratic Party presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama correctly derided his Republican rival Sen. John McCain for proposing a federal gasoline tax moratorium:
...we're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something.
That was then: this is now.
Yesterday, the "we-are-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for.-We-are-the-change-that-we-seek" candidate showed that he could be just as gimmicky as any other presidential aspirant. Obama proposed releasing 70 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to drive down high gas prices. Conservative commentator Mark Impomeni does a few quick calculations and finds that Obama's gimmick would yield about two-fifths of a tank of gas per driver. The change-we-can-believe-in apparently believes that 40 percent of a tank of gas is less gimmicky than 50 percent.
|8.5.08 @ 1:05PM|#
The change-we-can-believe-in apparently believes that 40
percent of a tank of gas is less gimmicky than 50
percent.
20% less gimmicky. 100% fat free.
|8.5.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Not to overly defend this, but there is a significant difference; the feds make money off of the sale of the released petroleum, whereas they would lose money with the gas tax moratorium.
|8.5.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Occam's toothbrush: The Feds might make money--depends on what the price is when (if?) they replace the 70 million barrels.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:10PM|#
No mention of the 'save more gas than all of the undeveloped USA
reserves - through tune-ups and tire inflation'?
Yes, both of those are important, but it ain't no ANWR size
savings.
Episiarch|8.5.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Why, oh why, do these idiots dance around the solution that seems to have actual resonance with the public, which is expanding domestic energy production/drilling? I realize that the Republicans are finally hammering on this but Pelosi turned the lights off on them; but you'd think Obama could see which way the wind is blowing? He's already pissed off people with FISA and centrist moves, why not this one? It's a pretty sure vote-getter.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:14PM|#
but you'd think Obama could see which way the wind is
blowing?
Don't worry, he will flip on this soon, just like he did on the
strat. reserve. You know, just for the election, not in
reality.
|8.5.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Ummm, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to mitigate a
sudden cutoff in overseas oil supplies. It was not created to
massage consumer prices whenever some economically ignorant
president wants to dip into it to ease our pain at the pump.
Drawing on the SPR is pandering at best, and utterly irresponsible
when you think for more than ten seconds on the dumbass idea.
Bob Barr is looking better every day.
Rimfax|8.5.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Ron,
I think that Occam's toothbrush was referring to the tax
revenue.
Both plans will temporarily drive the price down, reducing market
pressures on demand. By preempting the high price that would have
driven down demand, the price will be driven right back up in very
short order. Both plans are not only gimmicky, they are both doomed
to fail in their phoney baloney goals. Harrumph.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 1:22PM|#
The change-we-can-believe-in apparently believes that 40
percent of a tank of gas is less gimmicky than 50
percent.
Obama? Gimmick? Say it aint' so joe!
Occam's toothbrush: The Feds might make money--depends on what
the price is when (if?) they replace the 70 million
barrels.
Will have to check, but I thought his gimmick was to allow oil
companies to take out easily refined fuel, and dump back stuff that
costs more to refine, banking on some future technology that won't
happen when people have easily refined crude. Brilliant!
(Returning from checking) Ref from the WSJ says:
Under Sen. Obama's plan, the president would use light crude from the reserve and replenish it later with heavy crude "more suitable to our long-term needs," said Obama policy adviser Heather Zichal.
Don't know if you can see it as a non subscriber, but hopefully
it's
here.
Bob Barr is looking better every day.
Aw, now, don't discount "Change", just keep saying it to
yourself..."Change"...don't think..."Change"....pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful...
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:23PM|#
What exactly are ANWR sized savings?
Ginormous, as big as the frontier, almost as big as the whole
out-of-doors. It is huge, man, huge!
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:29PM|#
As I have said many times before, whn you guys start driving 'hybrids' like me, then I will take you seriously ;)
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Come on guys, we don't need more oil, we just need to inflate our tires with hot air from Obama's soaring rhetoric!
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Ginormous, as big as the frontier, almost as big as the
whole out-of-doors. It is huge, man, huge!
But, is it as big as this, from the same article:
Sen. Obama also proposed giving $4 billion in loans and tax credits to U.S. auto makers so they can retool their factories to make hybrid vehicles and a $7,000 tax credit to consumers who purchase the vehicles.
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Yes, both of those are important, but it ain't no ANWR size
savings.
Mean ANWR estimate is 780,000 bpd. The estimates for offshore
drilling range from 250k-1M bpd. So probably about 1.25M bpd
total.
Total US oil usage is 20.7M bpd, half of which is gasoline.
Inflation savings is up to 3.3%. So even if fully half of America
is driving on underinflated rhetoric tires, he's off
by nearly an order of magnitude at 165K bpd saved.
|8.5.08 @ 1:37PM|#
...we're arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a
tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone
in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did
something.
:(
I liked that Obama better
|8.5.08 @ 1:37PM|#
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/gop-state-convention-in-texas-if-obama.html
GOP giving out racist buttons:Whitehouse for white people!
OH and, the gas tax provides for our roads. We need it. The reserve
is to be used in just such a case.
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Josh, if you read the story, the GOP wasn't handing them out, a
vendor was selling them.
Meanwhile, the Dems fervently embrace all sorts of racist programs
to favor some minorities over others.
|8.5.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Obama is not flip flopping. He's coming up with a smart energy policy unlike the one Bush and co enacted that gave billions of dollars to their friends in the oil industry. That's what's gotten us to this point, and now the greedy oil companies are screwing us all. Well thank goodness because now maybe you people will wake up and realize that we need to invest in new technologies, which means also investing in our education system, and take our money back from the oil companies and their windfall profits.
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 1:45PM|#
and now the greedy oil companies are screwing us
all.
If you're referring to the state-owned oil companies that engage in
the open conspiracy to fix oil prices known as OPEC, I couldn't
agree more.
|8.5.08 @ 1:45PM|#
I think Republicans and Democrats can come together on one issue. We should have the primaries again. Mistakes were made.
|8.5.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Well thank goodness because now maybe you people will wake
up and realize that we need to invest in new technologies, which
means also investing in our education system, and take our money
back from the oil companies and their windfall profits.
Yep, like nuclear power, where Obama is visiting today. Wait a
minute! That was McCain, never mind.
|8.5.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Yep, like nuclear power, where Obama is visiting today. Wait
a minute! That was McCain, never mind.
LOLZ!!!
You come up with something like this and can't even close your
tags.
Obama has said time after time that we need to invest in solar and
wind energy as well as other forms. If we put even the slightest
amount of the money into that kind of research that we've given to
the oil execs we'd be energy independent within the next few
years.
|8.5.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Bailey once again misses the point about why these gimmicks are
bad. It's not mainly because they barely mitigate the pains of gas
prices as he implies, but rather because they have severe
side-effects. The gas tax holiday would leave our roads in ruins
and would be counterproductive to curbing carbon pollution. With
the SPR and Obama's plan, we would leave ourselves more vulnerable
to a supply shock. Currently the futures price of oil has been for
the longest of time under the spot price, sothere's no incentive
for oil companies to horde oil... but as a form of "social
insurance," per se, somebody should.
IMO part of the problem is that the median IQ is 100.
shecky|8.5.08 @ 1:52PM|#
According to Wiki, the high end of ANWR production in 2028 is 1.45 million barrels per day. In addition, this Time article places potential daily production from offshore drilling by 2030 at 200,000 bbl. per day. We apparently currently use we use about 20 million bbl. per day. Obama may not be right, but he's not that far wrong, either. Yeah, inflating the tires may be comparable to a significant portion of domestic oil drilling.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:53PM|#
So, we need to give billions in government funds to car
companies because they are not evil but Big Oil is?
And just allowing Big Oil to purchase leases and pay by the barrel
of production is some sort of giveaway?
This Newspeak is really getting out of control.
shecky|8.5.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Not that I'm really against the drilling in ANWR or offshore,
btw.
The wiki article says Alaskans get annual dividends from oil
leases. Where can I get mine, given that Alaska is part of the
US?
Pottsy|8.5.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Yeah, inflating the tires may be comparable to a significant
portion of domestic oil drilling.
Even more comparable when you factor in that there's no way to
guarantee that all of that domestic oil stays domestic. Oil drilled
off the coast of Florida or in ANWR is just as likely to end up in
Europe or Asia, no?
|8.5.08 @ 1:56PM|#
If we put even the slightest amount of the money into that kind of research that we've given to the oil execs we'd be energy independent within the next few years.
I don't know if you intended to be ironic, but those oil execs are
probably investing as much or more in alternative sources of energy
as our government. Big energy companies aren't going to give up
their money making machines (the market for energy) so easily.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:56PM|#
DR,
The gas tax holiday would leave our roads
illegal mass transit systems in ruins and would be
counterproductive to curbing carbon pollution.
Fixed, but that does not mean that I agree with anything else in
your comment.
PFJ|8.5.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Obama supports subisidies for corn ethanol, and the sugar tarriff that makes sugar cane ethanol a non option. Both are idiotic enough to make me declare his whole energy plan idiotic.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Pottsy,
Even more comparable when you factor in that there's no way to
guarantee that all of that domestic oil stays domestic. Oil drilled
off the coast of Florida or in ANWR is just as likely to end up in
Europe or Asia, no?
Yea, that is one of those sticky things when dealing with a
fungible commodity that has an international market.
Since we are talking about an international market, perhaps some
folks should brush up on it?
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Obama has said time after time that we need to invest in
solar and wind energy as well as other forms.
I'm thinking he needs to go to Ted K and convince him to put in the
wind farm off AssaChewShits before he starts taking too much credit
for wind energy.
The wiki article says Alaskans get annual dividends from oil
leases. Where can I get mine, given that Alaska is part of the
US?
You didn't know this? It's been going on for a fairly long
time.
Drill Here, Drill Now, and Sub|8.5.08 @ 2:01PM|#
We need ti drill everywhere and take our tax money out of
expensive mass trabsit schemes and build new highways. That's where
our tax money belongs.
Further, why can't we have our gasoline subsidi2d? The chinese do
it ti griw their economy, why not us?
|8.5.08 @ 2:01PM|#
"I think Republicans and Democrats can come together on one
issue. We should have the primaries again. Mistakes were
made."
True, but I am not sure a Hillary versus Huckabee campaign would be
any better.
I honestly can't figure out is Energized Democrat a troll or
serious?
What is funny about the whole thing is that the same Democrats who
are screaming about "oil profits" would have gladly put the price
of gas at $4 a gallon ten years ago through taxes. I guess the
positive effects of high gas prices, like increased efficiency and
more mass transit use, don't count if it is the market rather than
the government that is doing it.
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 2:02PM|#
shecky,
That Time piece is utter BS.
But who's really out of touch? The Bush administration
estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil
production by 200,000 barrels per day by 2030. We use about 20
million barrels per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand
two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that
keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage by 3%, and regular
maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their
advice, but if everyone else did, we could reduce demand several
percentage points immediately. In other words: Obama is
right.
Catch all the shifting goalposts, flawed assumptions, and bad math
there? "All the oil we could get from drilling" becomes "the
increase from expanded offshore drilling," and even then uses a
number that seems out of step with published estimates of 250,000
to 1 million bpd. Then we casually more than double the
tire-inflation savings by tossing in "maintenance." Then we throw
out quantitative analysis altogether by using the impossibly vague
"many drivers." Finally, we ball up our morass of bad data into a
misleading conclusion, and for emphasis we state explicitly the one
assumption we always regarded as unassailable: Obama must be
right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/business/26offshore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 2:03PM|#
there's no way to guarantee that all of that domestic oil
stays domestic. Oil drilled off the coast of Florida or in ANWR is
just as likely to end up in Europe or Asia, no?
You fail Econ 101.
|8.5.08 @ 2:04PM|#
I think Republicans and Democrats can come together on one issue.
But don't you know? The sheer stupidity of an idea correlates
almost perfectly with how many major political parties agree with
it.
PFJ|8.5.08 @ 2:05PM|#
In case that guy was serious, you don't subsidize gas, because it carries many negative externalities and the money would likely come from an increase in the income tax. So you'd be discouraging work (work is good for the economy) to encourage more use of oil (bad for the environment and roads).
TallDave|8.5.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Obama supports subisidies for corn ethanol, and the sugar
tarriff that makes sugar cane ethanol a non option. Both are
idiotic enough to make me declare his whole energy plan
idiotic.
Sadly, McCain isn't a lot better.
|8.5.08 @ 2:08PM|#
What is funny about the whole thing is that the same
Democrats who are screaming about "oil profits" would have gladly
put the price of gas at $4 a gallon ten years ago through taxes. I
guess the positive effects of high gas prices, like increased
efficiency and more mass transit use, don't count if it is the
market rather than the government that is doing it.
John -
The major difference here is that if we had put gas at $4 a gallon
with taxes then we could have used all of the tax revenue to fund
research for other forms of energy and we wouldn't be as reliant on
oil for everything. Look at Europe. They all have great mass
transit systems and people there are so much more consious of
conserving energy, and they have high gas taxes. The problem is
that americans rely on the "free market" to do our pricing and then
complain when the corporations take advantage of the free market
and use their monopoly to gain record profits while families are
getting kicked out of their homes!
|8.5.08 @ 2:08PM|#
there's no way to guarantee that all of that domestic oil stays domestic. Oil drilled off the coast of Florida or in ANWR is just as likely to end up in Europe or Asia, no?
You fail Econ 101.
I got a 4 on my micro AP and a 5 on my macro AP and his logic
sounded reasonable. I must be missing something. °_o
|8.5.08 @ 2:10PM|#
No I didn't Tall Dave. But you know, I think you could probably post that stuff up over at TNR or Kos and get a lot of kudos. If I had the time, I would sign up as a KOS diarist and see how crazy I had to get before they figured out I was a mole and kicked me out.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Why subsidize gas when we could just lower all of the taxes on it? Oh yea, that newspeak problem again . . .
Fluffy|8.5.08 @ 2:12PM|#
A true libertarian would demand the sale of ALL the petroleum in
the strategic reserve.
The state can buy and hold oil for use by its military if it
wishes, and there's no libertarian issue. But the stated purpose of
the strategic reserve is future market manipulation. Aren't we
supposed to be against that?
Here we have the state unabashedly stating that it's buying oil to
improve its ability to intervene in the market in the future, and
we have a libertarian magazine complaining about a candidate who
wants to do that less than we currently do. What's wrong with
that?
It's a pander, that's for sure. But beyond that, what's wrong with
it?
PFJ|8.5.08 @ 2:13PM|#
DR- I think the point was that even if some of the ANWR oil ended up being used by other countries, its still an increase in worldwide supply, which would bring prices down somewhat.
Drill Here, Drill Now, and Sub|8.5.08 @ 2:14PM|#
The Chinese keep their gas cheap through subsidies and they have a booming economy. Why should we waste money on crappy mass transit when we could use that same money to lower gas to two dollars a gallon?
|8.5.08 @ 2:14PM|#
John -
It's too easy to mock some of these people. Then again, it's really
easy to mock a lot of us too, but the more informed and calm and
the less predictable you are in your statements, the harder it is
to imitate.
|8.5.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Sen. Obama also proposed giving $4 billion in loans and tax
credits to U.S. auto makers so they can retool their
factories
waste it.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Yeah, inflating the tires may be comparable to a significant
portion of domestic oil drilling.
There's a tradeoff in degredation of our transportation
infrastructure. See
here for an interesting discussion of ESALs and LEF's, the last
part is kind of neat in describing how much more damage is done by
trucks.
However, the top part deals with tire pressures, and contact area.
Basically, if you increase pressure, you decrease contact area,
thus improving fuel efficiency but putting more stress on the
pavement structure. There is no free lunch, but this one comes out
of the collective pocketbook rather than the individual, which
seems where Obama lives.
|8.5.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Further, why can't we have our gasoline subsidi2d? The chinese do it ti griw their economy, why not us?
I chuckled when I read this.
First of all, subsidization of any market goods that don't provide
positive externalities is a really retarded idea. This is why
virtually all economists think farm subsidies are a terrible idea.
(Subtract "virtually" from that last sentence if you don't consider
those partisan freaks at the EPI real economists.) Furthermore,
burning oil has negative externalities. To achieve the social
optimum, gasoline must be taxed.
|8.5.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Is there anyplace where someone has put together a chart or
table showing the observed relationship between world oil price and
the injection of additional supply into the system? How many extra
barrels per day would need to be available to lower the price of a
barrel by 5%, 10%, etc.? More interesting might be a similar
chart/table showing the relationship between increase in oil supply
and the price of a gallon of gasoline.
I am, of course, wondering about the extent to which increases in
supply (such as dribblings from the strategic reserve) will
ultimately affect the price at the pump. Previous history seems to
suggest that even small increases (or the mere threat of them!) can
have a big effect; if so, releasing strategic reserve oil may be
the better play than temporarily dropping the gas tax.
Episiarch|8.5.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Here we have the state unabashedly stating that it's buying
oil to improve its ability to intervene in the market in the
future, and we have a libertarian magazine complaining about a
candidate who wants to do that less than we currently
do.
Uh, no. He wants to interfere now and then rebuild the
reserves so that he can also interfere in the future. He certainly
is not doing this is in order to interfere less.
|8.5.08 @ 2:18PM|#
DR- I think the point was that even if some of the ANWR oil ended up being used by other countries, its still an increase in worldwide supply, which would bring prices down somewhat.
Right, but oh so insignificantly at that point.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 2:18PM|#
We have an odd problem with the offshore reserves that do not
have islands on top of them. At least, by my most recent
understanding, I think we do.
Only the government can own our continental shelf. If that is the
case, it does make sense to me to lease drilling rights to
it.
However, all of those illegal "national parks" outside of DC do
need to be sold off, with the proceeds going to the descendants of
the people it was taken from, if applicable.
|8.5.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Additionally, to the fed comment below, the market is driven right now by speculators. Pulling oil out of the reserve sends a message that as part of a larger program, the gov is willing to do what it takes to quell issues. It's a difference of perception and reality. No gas tax means no money into the gov which means more cuts for our infrastructure. The effort was made to stop the speculation but it was not allowed to come to a vote...
Howard|8.5.08 @ 2:20PM|#
The Chinese keep their gas cheap through subsidies and they
have a booming economy. Why should we waste money on crappy mass
transit when we could use that same money to lower gas to two
dollars a gallon?
Please don't vote.
Drill Here, Drill Now, and Sub|8.5.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Daniel, don't tell me you believe in that lefty myth of global warming?
|8.5.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Has anyone rigorously crunched the numbers to decide the true increase in the price of oil and the price of gasoline since, say, 1950, taking inflation into account? Is the larger amount of the increase (if any) due to inflation or due to other factors? I ask, because the hard money guys like to say that the last-minted silver dime can buy about as much gas today as it could back in the 1960s, indicating that most of what we perceive as the increase in the price of oil/gas can be laid at the feet of inflation or adjustments to it, and I'm curious to learn if other knowledgeable people agree, or even better, have done the homework to substantiate or disprove that assertion.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 2:22PM|#
mouse,
The effort was made to stop the speculation but it was not
allowed to come to a vote...
Was this some nonsensical UN resolution? Just asking because, you
know, the USA is not the only place where oil futures are traded.
Any "effort" by the USAian Congress to "stop speculation" pretty
much drives those financial instruments to trading floors in other
countries.
|8.5.08 @ 2:25PM|#
The issue of countries like Iran and China subsidizing gas goes to show what hypocrites the left is on this issue. Subsidizing gasoline is terrible for the environement. It keeps people from becoming more energy efficient and prevents the market from working in positive ways. Yet, no one in the green movement ever says a word about this.
|8.5.08 @ 2:25PM|#
Daniel, don't tell me you believe in that lefty myth of global warming?
Drill-man, please don't tell me you don't believe in the scientific
consensus and data that strongly suggests global warming?
And even if global warming isn't happening (it is; data clearly
shows this), or even if global warming isn't being caused by humans
(it probably is; correlation strongly suggests this), or even if we
can't really stop global warming by cutting back our oil
consumption, oil still causes air pollution, and we need to pay for
public roads somehow.
|8.5.08 @ 2:26PM|#
congress should stop their partisan bickering and do something to provide some relief to the american public. there are so many problems that congress has done nothing to address because they can't agree on anything for political reasons. they should put their careers aside and do their jobs by creating programs and oversight agencies that can tackle the major problems our country is facing.
shecky|8.5.08 @ 2:26PM|#
TallDave, the adjustments made via the NYT article are more in
your favor, but in the end, aren't particularly impressive. Tire
inflation still looks like a winner, demanding almost no
effort.
Regarding offshore drilling, it will be interesting to see what
price NIMBYism has. And does anybody really worry about areas being
off limits to drilling forever? It will happen...
when the price is right.
PFJ|8.5.08 @ 2:27PM|#
"Daniel, don't tell me you believe in that lefty myth of global
warming?"
Even if global warming doesn't exist, the lower the price of oil,
the more drivers there are. That causes extra damage to the roads,
and more congestion both of which are bad. Also, since roads are a
positive externality, we should be subsidizing them, which is
harder to do when there is no gas tax.
BTW- A right winger yelling for subsidies- the #1 reason I no
longer call myself a Republican.
|8.5.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Here we have the state unabashedly stating that it's buying
oil to improve its ability to intervene in the market in the
future, and we have a libertarian magazine complaining about a
candidate who wants to do that less than we currently do. What's
wrong with that?
The SPR is no different than having a stockpile of food. It's
purpose isn't to interfere with the market whenever a politician
wishes; the crude is set to be released when a massive supply
disruption occurs...like if Saudi Arabia was nuked or
something.
It's only (at most*) a four-month amount, and even that's with
rationing it. It's about as low as it gets on the "things
libertarians should get riled up about"...on the other hand, a
major politician pumping this as some kind of big deal while his
party plays grab-ass with the Capitol Hill electricity is damn-near
a scandal.
The Ds are to energy policy what a faith-healer is to a cancer
patient: none of the "mainstream" cures work...we just gotta
BELIEVE and the crystals and lotions wind and solar
markets will SAVE US ALL.
|8.5.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Reinmoose - that's some Class A stereotyping of bipartisan hackery. You almost had me.
|8.5.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Total US oil usage is 20.7M bpd, half of which is gasoline.
Inflation savings is up to 3.3%. So even if fully half of America
is driving on underinflated rhetoric tires, he's off by nearly an
order of magnitude at 165K bpd saved.
And if oil weren't sold on a world market and the entirity of that
number were therefore likely to remain in the US, that would be
correct. But, given the fact that it isn't and that we'll only see
the percentage of that added amount that we see now, ANWR becomes
dinky and even offshore drilling doesn't yield that much more than
properly inflating tires.
Drill Here, Drill Now, and Sub|8.5.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Well I'm telling you daniel pollution or not the chinese will surpass us since their government recognizies you need cheap oil for a growing economy. We will fall behind whining about air pollution while they surpass us.
Dagny T.|8.5.08 @ 2:31PM|#
I don't know if you intended to be ironic...
I honestly can't figure out is Energized Democrat a troll or
serious?
You've been Reinmoosed!
Hey, Reinmoose, you caused some emotional damage (or whatever that
NYT article called it), you cyberbully!
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 2:32PM|#
John,
Subsidizing gasoline is terrible for the
environement.
Okay, lots of good arguments against subsidizing anything, but this
is not one of them.
I prefer my gas and rubber burning hybrid to have inexpensive power
through the free market, not through government do-goodery.
Besides, the plants love me more than you for driving as much as
possible.
|8.5.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Thanks Dagny.
I like to think I'm a better troll than whoever's behind Drill
Here, Drill Now, and Subsidize. I have my suspicions as to who it
is, too.
Elemenope|8.5.08 @ 2:36PM|#
However, all of those illegal "national parks" outside of DC
do need to be sold off, with the proceeds going to the descendants
of the people it was taken from, if applicable.
I never though of you as much of an injun lover, Guy.
Guess I was wrong.
|8.5.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Well I'm telling you daniel pollution or not the chinese will surpass us since their government recognizies you need cheap oil for a growing economy. We will fall behind whining about air pollution while they surpass us.
And I'm telling you that supply and demand is all we need, and if
China surpasses us, it's not going to be because they subsidize
oil.
Fluffy|8.5.08 @ 2:39PM|#
He wants to interfere now and then rebuild the reserves so
that he can also interfere in the future.
OK, that's different then. I did not know about the part of the
plan where the reserve would be built back up.
I prefer my gas and rubber burning hybrid to have inexpensive
power through the free market, not through government
do-goodery.
Guy, come on. Nothing in American life has ever been, or will ever
be, as massively subsidized as the use of the automobile. It's
patently absurd to talk about the use of any automobile as
being an outcome of the free market.
We could do everything every crazy green wants to do to subsidize
solar and wind and geothermal and every other "alternative" energy
source out there, and we wouldn't even begin to come close to what
has been done to create and maintain the gasoline economy.
Fluffy|8.5.08 @ 2:43PM|#
BTW, if this is the Presidential campaign thread for today, I
have to say that McCain turns into an even bigger dick every
day.
Apparently he showed up at the Sturgis motorcycle event, and is now
comparing his reception there to Obama's reception in Berlin.
This is like turning up at the Daytona 500 and saying, "Look at all
the people who came out to see me! My campaign is really taking off
now!"
Drill Man|8.5.08 @ 2:44PM|#
No, I'm not being seroius about subsidies.
But Rush Limbaugh made the exact same argument in all seriousness a
few says ago as a "conservative" position.
|8.5.08 @ 2:44PM|#
And I'm telling you that supply and demand is all we need, and if China surpasses us, it's not going to be because they subsidize oil.
Well this is a lie because I support carbon taxes... but
regardless, my econ 101 argument holds: unless you can prove to me
that gas consumption is a positive externality-- in other words,
the societal optimum amount of consumption exceeds the market
equilibrium-- then it's a bad idea. Cmon, man, that's just basic
economics. Please tell me you understand how that works.
|8.5.08 @ 2:45PM|#
People keep referring to the car maintenance thing as a
gimmick.
--
Jack Tapper (a critic of Obama) wrote this:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html
"Using the website FuelEconomy.gov, Verrastro writes, we can
estimate that "the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage)
savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines
properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly
inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%)
is 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons
of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement
translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million
barrels of oil per day."
However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect
only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with
the NHTSA statistics -- and it's highly unlikely that 100% of the
cars are in need of tune-ups at any given time, the maximum savings
amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says."
So only 10% or so, not 19% or so, of 1.6 million barrels a fay.
Let's say 800,000 barrels just from keeping your car in good
shape.
---
The Energy Information Administration revealed how much we would
get from drilling offshore, and when...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush19-2008jun19,0,4873940.story
"The Energy Information Administration said that opening access to
undersea oil fields "in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf
regions would not have a significant impact on crude oil and
natural gas production or prices before 2030." Drilling in domestic
waters off all the coasts except Alaska's would increase annual
production from 2.2 million barrels a day to 2.4 million barrels a
day, the agency estimates."
---
So: people make sure their cars are properly tinkered with and we
save 800,000 barrels of oil right now.
Or we drill, and only see 25% of that in 22 years time. Meanwhile,
all the cars that haven't been made efficient have been using
800,000 barrels of oil a day they could have not used. For 22
years.
That's almost 6.5 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL wasted.
At current prices, that's almost a trillion dollars.
Who the hell with half a conservative brain is ridiculing this?
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Guy, come on. Nothing in American life has ever been, or
will ever be, as massively subsidized as the use of the automobile.
It's patently absurd to talk about the use of any automobile as
being an outcome of the free market.
I disagree. The long haul truck is provided with the same, and they
do more pavement damage and constitute a business. Therefore, I
would submit they are far more subsidized than the automobile in
net terms.
We could do everything every crazy green wants to do to
subsidize solar and wind and geothermal and every other
"alternative" energy source out there, and we wouldn't even begin
to come close to what has been done to create and maintain the
gasoline economy.
But we can use nuclear power to generate electricity, which in turn
could be used for things like electric vehicles, and on the whole
create less waste than current coal technology, oil technology,
photovoltaic construction, etc.
BTW, if this is the Presidential campaign thread for today, I
have to say that McCain turns into an even bigger dick every
day.
And Obmama turns into a bigger ass. Perhaps they could go to CA and
have Jerry Brown marry them?
Episiarch|8.5.08 @ 2:47PM|#
This is like turning up at the Daytona 500 and saying, "Look
at all the people who came out to see me! My campaign is really
taking off now!"
When I went to the opening of The Dark Knight I was
pleased, but not surprised, by all the people who came to see me
there.
|8.5.08 @ 2:49PM|#
And Obmama turns into a bigger ass.
I disagree. At the moment, he's pandering a lot more to the
populists and centrists than the Democrats.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 2:51PM|#
BTW- A right winger yelling for subsidies- the #1 reason I
no longer call myself a Republican.
Repubs and Dems are both about putting the fucks on others to gets
what they can gets for their people. What the Dems lack in
religious smugness they make up for with intellectual smugness, but
they both know what's better for you so sit down and shut up and
change.
That's why I call myself neither.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 2:54PM|#
I disagree. At the moment, he's pandering a lot more to the
populists and centrists than the Democrats.
Ok, so is he then a tigher ass instead? McCain, for his failings,
is at least far more consistent than Obama on the whole. Not that I
plan on voting for either of them, but you have to give him
due.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 2:59PM|#
But we can use nuclear power to generate electricity, which
in turn could be used for things like electric vehicles,
ACK! Stop it!!!
Well, okay, if you like those little toys, fine by me. Don't really
want to pay for the junk that gos with it. How about you folks who
like those things pay for it with a tax on their users?
|8.5.08 @ 3:01PM|#
I want to save money on gas. Maybe Obama could help me. I'm
wondering if I should drive slower, or if I should go really really
fast?
Also, should I replace my air filter roughly as dictated by the
manufacturer, or is it better to wait until it is completely
plugged up by dead insects?
Now, with air conditioning in the home, should I leave the
thermostat set at 72 (like it is right now) or could I save energy
and money by turning it up to 76?
|8.5.08 @ 3:03PM|#
[McCain] showed up at the Sturgis motorcycle event
Festival of Dirtbags
This is a group of people whose opinion I value and respect.
Good grief.
|8.5.08 @ 3:03PM|#
I was under the imrpession that the oil in the SPR (which is light and sweet and easier to refine into transportation fuels) would be sold into the market and the proceeds would purchase the cheaper heavier, sour crude (which is harder to turn into transportation fuels). There wouldn't be a net change in SPR volume-wise, just quality-wise.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 3:04PM|#
bigbigslacker,
IIRC, per Sen. Obama's Word, other countries will tell you what you
need to do in those areas. He has spoken.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 3:04PM|#
Well, okay, if you like those little toys, fine by me. Don't really
want to pay for the junk that gos with it. How about you folks who
like those things pay for it with a tax on their users?
I don't particularly like them either, but it's a viable
alternative. Short rail runs on electricity also. Other stuff isn't
currently viable.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 3:05PM|#
P Brooks,
Are you trying to the elitist award on this thread or something?
lol
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Short rail runs on electricity also.
If they would only conver those from illegal to legal, that would
be great.
|8.5.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Ok, so is he then a tigher ass instead? McCain, for his failings, is at least far more consistent than Obama on the whole. Not that I plan on voting for either of them, but you have to give him due.
Actually, that was a joke about the blue's association with
"donkeys," but whatever floats your boat.
Gilbert Martin|8.5.08 @ 3:18PM|#
"Catch all the shifting goalposts, flawed assumptions, and bad
math there? "All the oil we could get from drilling" becomes "the
increase from expanded offshore drilling," and even then uses a
number that seems out of step with published estimates of 250,000
to 1 million bpd."
Yes I have noticed a lot of the opponents of drilling try to carve
up the potential sources and talk about some particular one as if
were the only one in consideration. Some talk about ANWAR and some
talk about offshore.
The reality of course is that we have multiple sources we can tap
and the combined total is indeed significant. There is ANWAR,
offshore, oil shale in the western U.S. increased use of coal for
electric plants AND to make synthetic gasoline. We have plenty of
coal.
There is probably more oil in a lot of the areas being considered
than the current official estimates indicate anyway. Those areaas
have not only been off limits to drilling for decades, they have
also been off limits to seismic and other types of testing that is
used to determine the probability of oil and gas deposits. The
technologies of those processes have greatly inreased since the
last time those areas were tested. But the drilling opponents not
only don't want any drilling, they don't want anyone to find out
how much oil is actually there that could be drilled because
they're afraid that if those estiamtes increase, that would
increase the policitcal pressure to drill there.
robc|8.5.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Unless there is going to be a federal office of tire inflation
inspection, comparing it to ANWR or offshore drilling or whatever
makes no sense.
Just as a note, for a 12k mile a year driver, replacing your 12 mpg
car with a 15 mpg car saves as much gas as replacing a 30 mpg car
with a 60 mpg car. One of the best ways to cut down on gas usage
would be to convince drivers of gas-guzzling SUVs to upgrade to
slightly more efficient gas-guzzling SUVs.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 3:20PM|#
If they would only conver those from illegal to legal, that
would be great.
(reading it as "converT")
I'm an engineer, not a lawyer. I can only tell you what works, not
what of the 423 colors of grey this particular color of grey is,
nor will I be able to apply the value judgement as to whether it
would be good, bad or great to beat someone with a bat painted with
that particulr color.
Electricity works, nuke generates it in a clean reliable relatively
cheap manner. Short rail works if the schedule is such that people
believe they can get around on it.
Subsidies don't work.
Trucking, for example, is hugely inefficient, and the market would
correct this but for the subsidy given trucks in terms of free
travelways, no maintenance (well, minimal...if I pay $500/yr in
road taxes, a truck doing 3,000 times the damage should pay
$1.5Mill, so a couple thousand is nothing essentially).
Also, why did I quote donkeys?
As you said, whatever floats your boat ;)
gorgonzola\'s foil|8.5.08 @ 3:21PM|#
I spent $9 on an air filter at Parts Plus, and my gas mileage went up 2 mpg, slightly less than 10%. Pays for the change in a tank and a half.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Unless there is going to be a federal office of tire
inflation inspection, comparing it to ANWR or offshore drilling or
whatever makes no sense.
I was waiting to bring that up after some more rope was dropped all
over this thread.
Don't worry, that idea fits just fine with the conscripted public
service and other ideas from the ILL Senator.
Just as a note, for a 12k mile a year driver, replacing your 12
mpg car with a 15 mpg car saves as much gas as replacing a 30 mpg
car with a 60 mpg car.
Not tracking with that one. Yes, 12 mpg for 12K comes out to 1,000
gallons. 15@12k is about 800 with a savings of 200. But a 30 MPG
car goes 12K on 400 gallons. Yes, the 60 MPG does save 200 gallons,
but you are starting from 400/yr rather than 1000.
Cute math trick though :)
One of the best ways to cut down on gas usage would be to
convince drivers of gas-guzzling SUVs to upgrade to slightly more
efficient gas-guzzling SUVs.
The market can do that even without those negative little
envirofundie words.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Other Matt,
I was talking about privatizing those commuter/public transit
lines.
|8.5.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Tall Dave,
The only problem is that your figures are off by a significant
degree of magnitude as well.
1. Crude oil only converts to gasoline at a ratio of about 47% (42
gallons of "sweet" crude makes about 20 gallons of gasoline once
refined. Yielding other marketable products and unwanted pollutants
as well)
2. It takes a huge amount of energy to find, build the rigs, drill,
pump, mantain facilities, serve the manpower needs, transport,
refine, transfer to "blending" stations and ultimately deliver that
finished gasoline to the consumer in order to take that crude and
turn it into gasoline. The ratio is 1.3 units of energy consumed,
for 1 unit of energy in gasoline, or about 57% of the energy
content of the crude will be offset by the energy expenditures to
capture, process and transport it, whether in the form of that
crude oil, natual gas, coal, electricity, etc.
3. The estimates are that it would be around 6-7 years before the
first drop of oil ever left ANWR. The DOE and National Geologic
Service says it would be another 7 years after that before the
field was operating at peak efficiency and producing a full rate.
In short, the estimated life span of ANWR (assuming the oil
companies were given lease holds tomorrow) is about 40 years.
On the other hand, if we started conservation efforts, the impact
would be immediate and the benefits would continue for that full 40
year period of time while ANWR is being exploited.
Bottom line, we are only going to yield about 24-30% of the crude
oil in ANWR in terms of gasoline/diesel. The number offset by even
everyone doing something that increased their fuel economy by
around 1.5% would be more than enough to easily offset ANWR and
most estimates from the DOE say that such remedial steps as proper
tire pressure, engine maintenance, oil changes, etc. could likely
result in an improvment in performance in the entire US vehicle
fleet of around 3.5%, a number which would be well beyond more than
double the equivalent amount fuel that will be collected from ANWR
at the end of the day.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 3:34PM|#
One of the best ways to cut down on gas usage would be to
convince drivers of gas-guzzling SUVs to upgrade to slightly more
efficient gas-guzzling SUVs.
The market can do that even without those negative little
envirofundie words.
Hey! That thing got a Hemi?!
I was talking about privatizing those commuter/public transit
lines.
Which speaks nothing towards legality to my understanding.
robc|8.5.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Guy,
Cute math trick though :)
It isnt a trick. Once you are driving a reasonable efficient car,
it doesnt help that much to be uber-efficient. Its the same reason
we forced my city to get rid of emissions testing on cars, against
their will. Virtually all the cars being tested were passing by
large margins. The cars that were emitting stuff were the older
cars that were exempt from the testing.
The market can do that even without those negative little
envirofundie words.
Duh. Notice I wrote "convince" not "mandate".
robc|8.5.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Lawboy87,
Any reason not to do both? What is it with people and finding some
single "best" solution instead of using everything?
I want nukes and windmills and hydro dams and ANWR and Gulf
drilling and coal plants and natural gas and solar and biofuels and
whatever. All without subsidies. Let people with capital try them
all and let what works work.
robc|8.5.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Add onto my list conservation and tire inflation and fuel efficient cars and private light rail and private bus lines and private heavy rail and etc.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 3:43PM|#
OM,
Hey! That thing got a Hemi?!
If it is mine it will!
Which speaks nothing towards legality to my
understanding.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the
authority to expend funds on public transportation.
If Ithica, NY* wants public transit and wishes to strap its
citizens with the bill, fine by me, but the people of Peoria, IL
need to be left alone about it.
*An adaptation of one of my favorite Firing Line
discussions with WFB, Jr. and a Carter official. Amazingly, the
Carter official was on the correct side of the argument with Mr.
Buckley, IIRC.
Invisible Finger|8.5.08 @ 3:43PM|#
"we-are-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for.-We-are-the-change-that-we-seek"
We-are-the-evil-speculators
Gilbert Martin|8.5.08 @ 3:58PM|#
"I want nukes and windmills and hydro dams and ANWR and Gulf
drilling and coal plants and natural gas and solar and biofuels and
whatever. All without subsidies. Let people with capital try them
all and let what works work."
That "without subsidies" part is what a lot of people DON'T want.
They want the government to pick the "winners" and force everyone
to use it - or more accuratly, they want to pick the winners
themselves and they want the government to make everyone else to
fall in line behind their "brilliant" decisions.
Fluffy|8.5.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Don't worry, that idea fits just fine with the conscripted
public service and other ideas from the ILL Senator.
If we're talking about putting in place rules governing the use of
vehicles on federal interstates, there's no need to analogize it to
Obama's national public service boondoggle.
As I noted before, the automobile is massively subsidized. One way
that subsidization has occurred is by the century-long construction
of a government road network that is partially federal. You've had
your subsidies, and if the feds decide to take their pound of flesh
for them you have no right to complain. If the state can say I
can't walk as a pedestrian or ride a horse or a bicycle in the
left-hand lane of the Long Island Expressway, they can ALSO say you
can't drive in ANY lane on ANY federal interstate without
properly-inflated tires. There is absolutely no difference other
than your perceived convenience, which means dick.
Hell, if they wanted to they could ban entire vehicle classes from
the federal interstates, the way they already ban horses and
bicycles. Ban all non-commercially registered SUV's with below a
certain MPG or whatever. Don't like it? Next time build a private
national road system.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the
authority to expend funds on public transportation.
Taken literally, nothing in the Constitution allows the federal
government to spend money on roads for any use other than by the
postal service and the military.
But say you read "post roads" in a more expansive sense. I would
certainly be happy to see the public transit systems in the US
privatized, but there are lots of other Constitutional violations
in our transportation system that I would also want to see undone
at the same time. For example, local governments engage in massive
unConstitutional regulatory takings in order to make sure that life
stays convenient for auto drivers. When local governments can no
longer set parking space requirements for development, can no
longer prevent development up to the property line, can no longer
zone for density to keep populations on certain road nets down,
etc., then I think we will be on our way to a Constitutional
transportation system. But not before that.
Zeb|8.5.08 @ 4:02PM|#
I know this will do nothing, but I feel the need to point out from time to time when Guy gets going on "enviro-fundies" that believing that global warming is real and that driving a low mileage vehicle when you have no need for it is bad are completely separate propositions from what the government should do about it. Just because leftists like something doesn't mean it is wrong. Ideas about what to do about it might be wrong, but the facts are the facts. I happen to think that people driving around in huge gas-guzzling SUVs are inconsiderate, wasteful assholes. That doesn't mean I think they should be forbidden or discouraged from doing so by some government program.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Zeb,
So you completly understand my position and partially agree with
it?
I do not go along with the name-calling of folks who like different
things than me, but that's just me.
Fluffy|8.5.08 @ 4:09PM|#
That "without subsidies" part is what a lot of people DON'T
want.
Let's think about wind for a minute, because doing so illustrates
exactly how the tangled public-private energy system we've
currently got obscures the issue of what is and what is not
subsidized.
The fossil fuel power generation system we've got now came into
being under a regime of public/private utilities that were
protected from competition and granted monopoly power, were
guaranteed a certain rate of return on their investment, and were
aided by governments in seizing easements for their transmission
lines. This series of interventions produced a centralized model of
electrical generation under which large fossil fuel burning power
plants are the most "efficient".
If electrical generators had not been granted local monopolies, had
not been guarnanteed rates of return, had not been able to either
seize or extort easements from property owners for their lines,
etc., would our current generation model even exist? Would it have
been "efficient" to build large, central plants to burn fossil
fuels and then to distribute that power to passive consumers?
Or would the "market", in the absence of the state's finger on the
scale, have favored a large number of local power generation points
[using technologies including wind] over a small number of
centralized points?
And if the current system is in fact the result of massive subsidy
and intervention, what grounds are there for crying "Don't disturb
the market!" when someone advocates intervening a second time?
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the
authority to expend funds on public transportation.
If Ithica, NY* wants public transit and wishes to strap its
citizens with the bill, fine by me, but the people of Peoria, IL
need to be left alone about it.
Is public transportation paid by federal money? Most of pub trans
I've encountered has been local/state financed. Feds provide funds
for Interstate systems and federal roads, but not bus lines nor
rail lines (other than Amtrak, but they don't manage their own rail
anyway to any degree). Almost all they money spent to manage it is
spent by the State, with the exception of federal land stuff such
as National Parks, Military, etc.
gorgonzola\'s foil|8.5.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Fluffy,
True - one thing that drives me (as an urban libertarian) nuts is
the history of rural electrification under Roosevelt's New Deal.
Cities are efficient concentrations of infrastructure, already
produced... that were not competitive to compete with Federally
subsidized electric and highway infrastructure out in the sticks. I
fully believe this is part of the cause of 50s and 60s urban blight
(that plus Robert Moses, of course).
Gilbert Martin|8.5.08 @ 4:24PM|#
"Just because leftists like something doesn't mean it is wrong.
Ideas about what to do about it might be wrong, but the facts are
the facts."
And theories are just theories - man made global warming is still
just a theory - not an established fact.
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Just because leftists like something doesn't mean it is
wrong.
Unless it's joe, of course, in which case the fuckwitted partisan
racist assholery quotient exceeds any rational value to the
idea.
Ideas about what to do about it might be wrong, but the facts
are the facts. I happen to think that people driving around in huge
gas-guzzling SUVs are inconsiderate, wasteful assholes.
Perhaps. If they're urban soccer moms, I tend to agree with you. I
drive one, but typically have four people in the vehicle in 4WD
going off road for work purposes. I'd be quite happy to drive a
green vehicle which seats 5 large men comfortably, has functional
4WD that can handle being actually off road as opposed to "drive
25mph in the snow" 4WD, but I can't seem to find such a thing. Does
that make me an asshole? Not in and of itself, at least not for
driving it as I have a legitimate need and no other type of vehicle
is sufficient. Soccer moms that are using a Suburban for "safety",
meaning they'll kill someone else instead of themselves, and never
put it in 4WD, I would agree are high on the wasteful asshole
scale.
Chicoo|8.5.08 @ 4:34PM|#
He's got an even nuttier idea, namely giving every adult in
America $500 and funding it by taxing oil companies' "windfall
profits".
Maybe the right-wing nutjobs are after all right about Obama being
a Marxist.
Guy Montag|8.5.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Other Matt,
Is public transportation paid by federal money? Most of pub
trans I've encountered has been local/state financed.
You have been around here how long and are not aware that
federal funds are used for both roads and public
mass transit, like the DC area METRO system and others around
the country?
You really really really did not know that?
|8.5.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Shouldn't a "Strategic Petroleum Reserve " be used in say a time of war instead of when Joe Six pack has to pick between a full tank of gas or that extra 50 cable channels?
Other Matt|8.5.08 @ 5:21PM|#
You have been around here how long and are not aware that
federal funds are used for both roads and public mass transit, like
the DC area METRO system and others around the country?
Construction, yes, in the same manner they fund grants to states
for other things. Operations are what I was speaking to.
|8.5.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Fluffy,
The argument that
1. Subsidies did bad things in the past
2. So in order to be fair
3. lets give subsidies to (insert renewable energy fad of the
day)
Is terribly destructive to the environment and to the development
of functional alternative energy sources.
The government mandate / subsidy policy implemented biofuels
boondoggle and the ever increasing environmental destruction caused
by it is a textbook example of just how dangerous government
subsidies are.
Ending existing subsidies, not enacting new ones is the best way to
make progress in alternative energy.
|8.5.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Man, the confusion and contradiction in the energy debate is
beyond amazing.
Removing oil from the SPR is a bad idea for many reasons. One is
that it reduces the pressure on oil supply, which could lower the
price of oil - for the entire world. That means demand will
increase in places like China. Or, OPEC may decide to screw with
the U.S. by reducing output commensurately, keeping prices just as
high as they were. Then when the SPR run out, oil continues its
climb, and nothing changes - except now the U.S. has to buy
additional oil to replenish the SPR, driving oil prices up. The
result could be selling U.S. oil at low prices, and buying it back
at high prices.
You might notice from this that what the U.S. is doing by depleting
SPR, assuming it HAS to be replenished, is speculating in the oil
futures market. Essentially, it's buying a contract for 70 million
barrels of oil in the future. If the price goes up between now and
then, this will cost the U.S. money. But just as importantly, the
market will price this in to the current price - the knowledge that
the U.S. will shortly be making an additional 70 million barrel
purchase to replenish the SPR will be factored into estimates of
future demand, and drive up the futures price of oil - which will
have an effect on the current price.
The oil market is global and fungible, which makes it exceedingly
hard to screw around with by fiat. Pass a law cutting local
consumption, and demand increases elsewhere.
If the U.S. were to switch overnight to a higher-cost alternative
energy source, the lowered demand for oil would drive the price
down and stimulate demand for it in Asia and elsewhere until a new
equilibrium was reached. They'd get cheaper oil, at the expense of
the U.S.'s high cost replacement. It will do nothing to lower the
amount of money going to terrorist nations, but it would lower the
amount of influence the U.S. has over those nations. It will do
nothing for the amount of oil burned in the world - it will just
change the distribution of who burns it.
This is a problem that cannot be solved by fiat. You can't announce
subsidies or tariffs or huge government programs to solve the
problem.
Understand that every drop of oil in the middle east is going to
come out of the ground and be burned - until it's too expensive to
burn relative to the alternative energy sources available.
The only way out of this mess is to come up with new energy sources
that are cheaper than petroleum. As oil goes up in price, other
sources will eventually be more cost-effective, and we'll move away
from oil all on our own. Nuclear is already there, but Obama
opposes that. Wind is almost there, but wind is a very limited
resource that will never produce more than a fraction of our power
needs. Solar is getting better and may get there, but it too cannot
supply all our needs.
We need to wait until these alternative sources are available in
quantity at low prices. In the meantime, all the government
meddling in the world is just going to distort prices, create
perverse incentives, make everything worse. One thing government
could do in a responsible energy program is to eliminate the
already-extant regulations that have partly caused this mess. Drop
sugar tariffs, eliminate ethanol subsidies, streamline nuclear
regulation, end the executive moratorium on offshore drilling,
allow ANWR to be opened if Alaska so chooses, etc.
The last thing you want to do right now is 'give Americans a break'
with any kind of subsidy or market manipulation, because the pain
they are feeling is due to price signals which are very important.
If the high price of oil reflects our best understanding of its
current value, then artificially lowering it or subsidizing it is a
really bad idea. If you want to give Americans a break, a better
way to do it would be with a tax credit on something totally
unrelated to oil, so at least the oil price signals continue to
work and stimulate investment in alternatives and
conservation.
Obama's plan also includes mandating 1.5 million plug-in hybrids by
2015, and giving a $7000 tax break for purchase of a plug-in
hybrid. I'm actually a fan of plug-ins, and think they currently
look like a good solution. Yet I think Obama's plan is
idiotic.
Why is it idiotic? For one, it pushes a specific technology.
Plug-ins look good today, but there are all kinds of other
technologies being researched. Governments are horrible at picking
winning technologies (if this plan had come out five years ago, the
subsidy would have been for hydrogen vehicles. If it came out three
years ago, it would have been for bio-fueled vehicles). If you want
the market to work, you have to allow it to seek the optimimum
path. Barack Obama is not qualified to decide that we should all
start buying plug-ins, and neither are his advisors.
Second, his timelines are pulled right out of his ass. We have no
idea if we could meet them. We don't know if we could make enough
batteries. We don't know if the grid can withstand it. We don't
even know if it makes sense, because we can't predict the price of
gas in 2015. But mandated timelines distort the market heavily.
They divert resources, they create 'crash' programs that may be ill
thought out. They suck resources out of alternatives.
There's all the evidence in the world that the market is working
just fine (OPEC notwithstanding). High gas prices are causing
feverish amounts of research into alternative forms of energy and
smaller, more efficient cars. All auto makers are working on
plug-ins as fast as they can, along with other technologies. Why in
hell do we need a 'man with a plan' to step forward and centrally
manage it all? He'll just screw it up.
High prices have signalled to the market that we need cheaper
energy and more efficient ways to use it. Mankind has never devised
a better mechanism than the free market, so long as it has the
signals it needs (i.e. there are no market failures). When oil was
$14/bbl, you could argue that externalities like carbon emissions
caused the market to break, because those externalities were a
significant fraction of the cost of the oil. Now that oil is 10
times that price, the market is much more efficient. If you have an
efficient market, let it do its thing, great as the temptation to
tinker may be.
Gilbert Martin|8.5.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Just wait until the tokamaks can push past the break even point
in creating controlled fusion energy.
Then you'll have all the power you want.
And when and if that happens, watch all the enviro-leftists switch
gears immediatly and start denouncing it as being TOO cheap.
Limitless cheap power would make it much easier to increase
consumption of everything else in the way of raw materials and spur
all sorts of massive building and development that they hate with a
passion.
|8.5.08 @ 7:14PM|#
I don't get this "windfall" profits bullshit. Exxon had a damn fine quarter, earning over 11B,but paid over 32B in taxes.I think 3 times earnings is quite enough. http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2459357&title=Exxon_Posts_Record.html
johnl|8.5.08 @ 7:41PM|#
robc and guy yes that's a good trick. But it doesn't matter what
the length of the commute is. For any two commutes of equal length,
replacing a 12 MPG car with a 1 MPG car is the same as replacing a
30 MPG car with 60 MPG, or replacing a 60 MPG car with a Vorlon
perpetual motion drive car. That's because
>>> 1/12. - 1/15.
0.016666666666666663
>>> 1/30. - 1/60.
0.016666666666666666
>>> 1/60.
0.016666666666666666
Observationalist|8.5.08 @ 8:07PM|#
I like when TallDave, Montag and Other Matt get together and Shanghai a thread, because I know I can skip the resulting clusterbang.
Fluffy|8.5.08 @ 8:41PM|#
The argument that
1. Subsidies did bad things in the past
2. So in order to be fair
3. lets give subsidies to (insert renewable energy fad of the
day)
That's not exactly what I am arguing.
I am arguing that the people who say that they want to stick up for
the gasoline-powered automobile and the centralized fossil fuel
burning electrical utility because that's what the "free market"
has produced are full of shit. They weren't and aren't the product
of the free market, so to the extent that these people tell
themselves that "their side" represents the market and "the other
side" are dirty hippies who want state subsidies, they're full of
crap.
Ending existing subsidies, not enacting new ones is the best
way
But "ending the subsidies" would require tearing up all the public
roads, since their existence as a capital good represents an
ongoing and perpetual subsidy. It would also require forcing the
utilities to disgorge their monopoly profits, and tear down any
power lines built on easements that grew out of their monopoly
status. We can't really do anything of those things, but since we
can't we will continue to get distorted outcomes in our energy
markets if we just make no further changes.
|8.5.08 @ 9:46PM|#
No mention of how he believes raising taces on oil companies
will make them drop prices? it didn't work last year when we put
them up to 44% it didn't work the year before, or the year before.
In fact all they did was jack UP the price when that happened. Just
like how they pass on the gas tax in illinois on to the
people.
Does anyone REALLY believe this will work?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245