Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Aren’t Liberals Celebrating Higher Gas Prices? It's What They Want

Democrats have spent the past two decades advocating for policies that artificially spike fossil fuel prices.

With consumer confidence at a 17-year high and economic prospects looking relatively strong, congressional Democrats have taken to grousing about the gas pump as a midterm strategy. "These higher oil prices are translating directly to soaring gas prices," declared Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, "something we know disproportionately hurts middle- and lower-income people."

If this is true, then why have Democrats spent the past two decades advocating for policies that artificially spike fossil fuel prices? If higher energy costs hurt Americans—and thank you, senator, for conceding this point—why have liberals favored increasing gas taxes, inhibiting exploration for fossil fuels (including a ban on fracking for less environmentally damaging gas in a number of places), and capping imports? If higher gas prices disproportionately impact the working class and poor, then why do Democrats push for national schemes designed to create false demand through a fabricated marketplace?

Not a single reporter asked the Democrats who were performing at a press conference in front of an Exxon filling station the other day if higher gas prices might incentivize Americans to switch to subsidized "alternative" energy sources—even though this happens to be the prevailing theory driving much of their energy policy. Shouldn't Democrats be celebrating the fact that fewer Americans were driving on Memorial Day? I thought we were facing an apocalyptic situation here.

Schumer conveniently blamed the United States' exiting of the Iran nuclear deal for the spike—an agreement he supposedly opposed. Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz, a self-styled "climate hawk," claimed, "There's a straight line between Trump's policies and the price of gasoline." We can only now assume he believes the prevalence of cheap fossil fuels is imperative in the effort to alleviate poverty and create wealth. I concur. But don't worry about Iran, senator; there's plenty of oil elsewhere.

Politico maintains that Democrats have stolen a page from the "GOP playbook to attack Trump," which is true, though the difference is that Republicans generally support proposals that make gas more affordable. The Obama administration, for example, benefited greatly from a recalcitrant GOP Congress's committed obstruction of an untold number of terrible initiatives. We should recall that the energy secretary openly wrestled with ways "to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." When Obama was asked in 2008 if the $4-a-gallon gas prices at the time were beneficial for the American economy, the presidential candidate prevaricated, saying, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment."

What is the gradual adjustment Democrats prefer today? A slow and steady move to $7? Right now U.S. gas prices are only a fraction of those in European nations, and yet Democrats acted as if Trump had triggered Armageddon when he decided to leave the Paris climate agreement. Do you want us to follow Norway's lead or not?

Democrats had opposed the opening of pipeline projects, of new drilling, and allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to transform from a regulatory agency that was protecting the environment to a place where the administration could implement backdoor legislation that American voters had rejected. If Democrats hadn't lost power in 2010, we might be living with those $4 per gallon prices today.

To understand how this policy manifests, just look at California, where gas prices are consistently among the highest in the nation—despite the fact that there are no constraining geographic or economic impediments to cheap energy. Last year, the legislature pushed through another gas tax (and an even larger one on diesel) and extra "fees" to help make one of the most regressive energy policies in the country even more onerous and expensive.

Now, obviously the entire spectacle is for show. Schumer says, "It's time for the president to buck his oil executive buddies," because lots of ignorant voters probably believe that the price of crude oil can be controlled by a few nefarious CEOs. The only question I have is: Why don't these profit-mongering oligarchs keep prices high all the time?

Of course, in the real world, summertime typically brings a spike in prices—and despite Schumer's forecast of "soaring gas prices," prices are already dropping again. Given the fungibility of commodities and the track record of the Middle East, we'll likely always have to deal with some painful fluctuations in the price of energy, regardless of what we do at home. But relying on market forces has, by every conceivable measurement, had a better track record than price controls.

So while Democrats have learned to be less open with their intentions, the policies speak for themselves. What do they plan on doing about oil prices when they win the election? Yell at some executives? Why doesn't anyone with access ask these concerned senators if they believe cheap fossil fuels is preferable? Or do they still support policies that spike energy prices on purpose?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Who needs chronic Democratic policies to raise prices when you have Republican tariffs and protectionism?

    Plus, conservative price hikes are served with sides of bigotry!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Yes, but higher gas prices, isn't this what your team wants? Answer the question.

  • Z565||

    It's just such dumb question. The only motherfuckers who want higher prices are the people who profit from higher prices. These people are mostly allied with Republican.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Harwood: So could these high prices help us?

    Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

    Sounds like Obama wants at least a gradual increase in gas prices to me.

  • John||

    It is amazing how easily these retards step in it. They just mouth talking points. The talking point today is evil Republicans raise gas prices. It is kind of amazing how they can just put things down the memory hole. The years of claiming the need to raise gas prices being an article of faith among Democrats just disappears from their minds. It is kind of terrifying how willing they are to suspend disbelief and say whatever the movement demands.

  • Hunthjof||

    Sadly yes. I have had so many arguments with people saying from 2009-2017 they never paid more then 2.50 a gallon or some amount around there. When i show them stats that yes several times you nearly paid 4 bucks a gallon they still deny it. They truly are convinced gas prices only go up under Republican Presidents

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Don't forgot the news reporters during Bush interviewing people when gas was 3 dollars. Under Obama, not a peep

  • Elias Fakaname||

    De ocrats only cheer high energy prices when it is the result of two things; regulatory overhead, amd taxation. If the l Rice's are based on real costs, and high profit margins, then they are against them.

    That how the Marxist scum roll. As they love hurting 'big corporations', and collecting tax revenue.

  • An Innocent Man||

    Al Gore and others called for a floor price of gasoline at 5 bucks a gallon, using a variable tax. So if, say, the natural price of a gallon was $3, the federal gas tax would be $2. So, you're wrong.

  • Bubba Jones||

    And then they would blame Exxon for selling at $5.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Of course!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe," said Chu.

    That would be energy secretary steven chu under obama.

  • Will Nonya||

    Sure there is a profit motive but that's tempered by market forces. What isn't tempered is the desire to alter the behavior of people you disagree with by making the items, including necessities of life prohibitively expensive.

  • ThomasD||

    How exactly does one profit from a condition that will tend to decrease demand?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The only motherfuckers who want higher prices are the people who profit from higher prices

    Name one person in the world that this doesn't apply to...

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Given that governments rake in far more in taxes per gallon than those evil oil companies make in profit does that make them the "only motherfuckers.

    Is this guy artie poos' retarded cousin or just a random troll?

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Yeap, those evil people should have kept gas at 3 dollars for the past few years right? OPEC should have still stole oil at 100 dollars a barrel. You can alway charge whatever you want.

    How dumb are you? Yes, gas companies want to make a profit. Given. But for the last 10 years Democrats what to rise gas prices to European levels. They believe gas prices of 4 dollars a gallon is good. Democrats closed refineries and made it harder to open new ones. And before you say it's all about the environment - so were the wind turbines outside Martha's Vineyard and so is Nuclear.

  • khm001||

    What kind of idiot thinks higher prices results in profits? Further, what kind of idiot thinks profits are a bad thing? Thank you, though, for making clear democrats hate profits.

    FYI, profits are nothing more than the value added to OTHER PEOPLE'S lives minus the cost in resources to provide that added value. Obviously, democrats hate making other people's lives better AND hate efficient use of resources to maximize making other lives better.

  • theomore||

    You do realize that government makes more money off of a gallon of gasoline or diesel than the refinery that it comes from?

  • ibcnu||

    Wow, just wow. Nice example of reason there. What "team" are you on. Last time I checked, reason and team are ends of a spectrum. I personally am not on any team and feel that we should have gas prices without any subsidies at all in any way. If it is over $7 a gallon (as it was in Israel mere days ago for instance) then so be it. Taking the plunge forward into the future we know we can have versus hiding in the past is literally a choice. Sure, "stay the course" regardless of "collateral damage" over and over. Does it mean one may have to let go of their personal and social predation on one another in favor of a greater goal as a whole? Absolutely yes, and none of us can lay blame for everything on anyone else. Plenty of that to go around already, that is what we get looking at everything with a team mentality in the first place. It implies that seeing everything as a competition of dominance is somehow okay. Sorry, propaganda is propaganda regardless of attempts to "frame" it as anything but.

  • SDN||

    Because if he answered honestly, he'd have to admit that Tom Steyer benefits as much as anyone..... and he's a Democrat.

    So he'll lie again.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Is that you, Robby?

  • epsilon given||

    So you're saying that the Republicans are stupid...but the Democrats are evil?

    I fail to see how bigotry has anything to do with this, though; after all, the party of the KKK wants prices high for everyone, while the Civil Rights Party wants energy to be cheap for everyone...

  • Rat on a train||

    I can't believe the Democrats would say something they don't believe in their quest for power. I'm doubly surprised that the press won't question them on the inconsistency. What happened while I was in a coma for the past 10 years.

  • Z565||

    Generally speaking Republicans want war and sanctions against Iran and are willing to sacrifice gas prices to accomplish those goals. The Democrats are concerned about the environment and are willingly to sacrifice gas prices to meet their goals. The oil industry who are allied with Republicans actually do want higher prices. They aren't sacrificing higher prices for some other goal. They specifically want higher prices so they can live wealthier lives.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Generally speaking, the Democrats are looking for a wedge issue that they can appeal to Trump voters on. They don't really care about gas prices beyond their ability to appeal to the little guy as caring about them.

    Trump should propose a reduction in gas taxes prior to the election and include spending cuts to "pay" for it. Force the Democrats to put their money where their mouth is. Do they care about the little guy or not?

    Also, I'd like to see someone challenge Schumer on the causality of the Iran nuclear deal in terms of global oil prices. If there is something there then there must have been a steep drop in oil prices when the deal was agreed to by Obama?

  • ThomasD||

    I'd also like to see Trump do something similar to 'offset' any consumer price increases due to the steel tariffs. Say, by opening US markets to Caribbean sugar.

  • Gleep Glop||

    "They specifically want higher prices so they can live wealthier lives."

    Because their cost structure has never changed since 1926.

    This is why the left has zero credibility on any economic issue. You obviously have no idea how the industry works, their cost structure, the regulatory structure, etc. and yet you know exactly why prices are increasing.

    Economists in DC every May are asked to perform an analysis of why gas prices are increasing and the answer, year in and year out, is an increase in demand due to summer travel.

  • Will Nonya||

    As long as we forget the democratic support for aggression against oil producing nations then sure, seems plausible.

    As Z565 said its a political maneuver. To pretend that the democrats believe in their professed platform or care about any specific group of citizens beyond their donors any more than the republicans is disingenuous .

    Once the tarriffs have the effect on consumers it will be much easier to pin higher princes on the dufus in chief.

    Believing that a profit motive is any less honorable that the power motives and desire for control that drives these political machinations is naive.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "The oil industry who are allied with Republicans actually do want higher prices. They aren't sacrificing higher prices for some other goal. They specifically want higher prices so they can live wealthier lives."

    Retired petroleum engineer here.

    Yeah, the industry wants higher prices. But their actions, at leas those of the shale cowboys, are suppressing prices. The shale industry has been spending beyond its cashflow for the last decade drilling wells to generate production growth that the market didn't need. That's what caused the price bust in 2014. And they're still doing it today. So they're arguably the mirror image of the Dems - they want prices to move in one direction while their actions are causing it to move in the opposite direction.

    Same argument can be made regarding the Republicans, assuming they want higher oil prices - which I'm not sure has been demonstrated. "Drill, baby, drill!" is gonna increase supply, and what effect does more supply have on prices?

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    You do realize idiot, that oil from Iran and Venezuela for that matter doesn't have much of an impact. It's more refineries switching over to the government mandated blend (that gives you lower gas mileage).

    You also realize that the oil industry wants more refining because there is more product than they can refine and ship but Democrats have said no.

    So go back to your Democrat talking points and review your story.

  • khm001||

    "Generally speaking Republicans want war"

    Most wars the US has fought were started by democrats.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Can we avoid lumping the retail cost of gas with the taxes paid at the pump. Yeah, the average American doofus just thinks of "price" as the single number, but when California now adds on 55 cents per gallon (along with 18 cents for the feds), just saying gas "prices" are higher there avoids the real issue.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Feature.

  • Bubba Jones||

    That and California has a unique formulation.

  • khm001||

    "the average American doofus just thinks of "price" as the single number,"

    Are you such a goof you don't understand prices IS a single number? it's the intersection between the supply and demand curve.

  • Citizen X||

    So high gas prices are bad if due to fluctuations in the oil market but good if due to government directly and intentionally causing gas prices to be higher by piling on taxes. Got it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You can't let those EVIL oil companies make a profit.

    The government has much more noble goals. It's perfectly fine for them to fleece the public.

  • Jayburd||

    Haven't any of you dumb motherfuckers heard of peak oil?

  • Jayburd||

    Carbon credits will bring the price down.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We just need to pit turbines on electric cars. Then they coild run forever on fresh, clean, and free air!

  • Chipper Jones||

    Throw a steel furnace on every Prius and you've reached peak Mao.

  • John||

    Ron Bailey approves of this message

  • Mark22||

    Progressives will just burn rich white males for heating and energy, like they did in Germany in the 1940's. Germany: a leader in renewable energy for more than half a century!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I used to hear about it a lot. I think they gave up the theory about the 3rd time they realized the known reserves were increasing.

  • khm001||

    Yes. It's a discredited idea by actual oil production numbers.

  • markm23||

    I've heard of peak oil and similar claims many times. But "peak oil" is at a fixed price and technology. Every time there was an alleged shortage, once the price increased, they drilled deeper or invented better technology, and there was plenty of oil again - so much that the price in constant dollars dropped.

  • John||

    If Democrats are so concerned about gas prices, why don't they propose the EPA allow the building of more refineries? Yeah, that will happen real soon.

  • Hunthjof||

    You have to understand as stated in the article their goal has always been to raise gas prices to European levels or worse. remember the worst thing to happen to the progressive movement was affordable driving by the masses. When that happened their dream of a central planned utopia failed. The working class fled the cities in droves. Progressives needed us still massed together using mass transit to assure their political machines could run wild. So ever since the 60's their goal has been to reduce driving and get us peasants back where they think we belong.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Why do we allow progressives to fun free?

  • Bubba Jones||

    You don't understand. Taxes don't raise prices! They just siphon off nefarious oil profits!

  • Chipper Jones||

    You joke, but this is what they actually believe.

  • Will Nonya||

    As soon as a senator says 'something we know' you can rest assured its probably bullshit or at least framed in a misleading manner.

    And what abkutnit is disproportionate? Isn't it exactly as proportionate as its intended to be? Just because it takes up a larger portion of a smaller budget does that mean its now somehow disproportionate?

  • Jerryskids||

    But relying on market forces has, by every conceivable measurement, had a better track record than price controls.

    Nobody in DC believes that. Sure, the free market establishes sort of a baseline for supply and demand but it's a crude measure that can always be tweaked here and there by Top Men to make things better, more efficient. And keep in mind Schumer et al are not directly talking about doing something themselves, they're appealing to Trump to do something. Trump has a very good brain, is a master of 7-D Wizard chess, is the greatest negotiator and deal-maker since Jacob traded Esau a bowl of soup for his birthright, and nobody knows more about the oil industry, international trade, currency conversions, the manufacture of SAE30R6 gasoline hose and economics than Trump. Why do you have no faith that if Trump wanted to, he could easily negotiate the price of gasoline down to a nickel per bushel?

  • khm001||

    "the free market establishes sort of a baseline for supply and demand but it's a crude measure that can always be tweaked here and there by Top Men to make things better, more efficient."

    Poe's Law.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    If Democrats had their way, gas prices would be irrelevant since they'd prefer that people not be allowed to have cars at all.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" Democrats spent the past two decades advocating for policies that artificially spike fossil fuel prices?""

    And Obama did the opposite allowed fracking and shale oil.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean he had no justifiable reason to ban fracking, which shows just how robust the science is. On the other hand he did ban keystone XL and offshore drilling in large swathes of the atlantic as well as drastically cutting back on new field leases, so in terms of the actions he undertook he most definitely tried to choke off supply.

  • Mark22||

    And Obama did the opposite allowed fracking and shale oil.

    Our dictator graciously allowed it? I had no idea! How magnanimous!

  • ThomasD||

    You didn't build it.

    He allowed it.

  • D-Pizzle||

    It's this exact mentality that drives many of us on this site crazy; the notion that something is "banned" unless specifically and affirmatively allowed by the almighty government.

  • ThomasD||

    "allowed"

    You say that as if it was somehow something under his purview.

    I guess we should all thank King Putt for allowing us to do anything, right?

  • Mark22||

    If this is true, then why have Democrats spent the past two decades advocating for policies that artificially spike fossil fuel prices?

    Do you need to ask? Politics on the left isn't about advocating rational, consistent policies, it is about power and propaganda. That's what critical theory is all about.

  • Heraclitus||

    Typical politics. Kind of like when Republicans say minimum wages are bad because higher prices will get passed on but then turn around and argue for restricted immigration so that wages will rise (and pass on higher prices). Deocrats are being hypocritical only if we do a superficial reading of this. Dems want higher prices for two reasons; 1) make alternative energies more economically viable and hence, jump start those industries, and 2) use taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure. Under Trump higher prices flow to the oligarchs and serve little useful public benefit. The Saudis love it of course.

    And let's not forget the low-hanging fruit the Dems are plucking. Anyone with have a brain remembers when the GOP would rake Obama over the coals for high gas prices. Even then it was silly because they chose to ignore the high prices caused by Bush. So of course the Dems are sticking it to Trump. Reason and others are playing the usual superficial gotcha game of pointing out the hypocrisy, but it only works when you merely scratch the surface and don't do real reporting.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the democrats who continuously advocate for restricted drilling? Democrats who banned fracking in new york state? Democrats who banned keystone xl? Democrats who uses the EPA to jack up formulation costs? Democrats who placed a moratorium on gulf deep water aftet macondo and AGAINST the technical recommendations from their own experts?

    Yeah, just superficially hypocritical.

    Oh, and since democrats are all for free flow of labor they'll have no trouble opening up the floodgates for work visas with no path to citizenship, right? Yeah, we've hears this old, scratched record before.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Really. So if I drive a car with alternative energy, why do the democrats want to rise the gas tax on me? As for transportation infrastructure - CA has the highest gas taxes in the country. Highest. How are there roads (hint they are among the worst)

    You do realize that US is the 1# exporter of oil in the world right?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    According to the API compilation of state gas taxes, PA has CA beat by a nickel.

    And the US is not even in the top 10 oil exporters.

  • ibcnu||

    Absolutely not true. The US is nowhere near close to being tops in that area. Possibly you meant refined? Or is it that your number includes some corporate enterprise "from the US" operating in another place on earth and not "in the US"?

  • Seamus||

    Kind of like when Republicans say minimum wages are bad because higher prices will get passed on but then turn around and argue for restricted immigration so that wages will rise (and pass on higher prices).

    The Republicans I've been listening to say that minimum wages are bad because they reduce employment (i.e., put Americans out of work). (They think unrestricted immigration is bad because it *either* puts Americans out of work or drives down their wages.)

  • khm001||

    "Kind of like when Republicans say minimum wages are bad because higher prices will get passed on but then turn around and argue for restricted immigration so that wages"

    Heh. I love idiocy like this.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    For Trump to get praised by the Democrats, he would have to ...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Be replaced by the next gop president who would then become the earthly manifestation of hitler. It's kimfa like that whole horus/osiris thing.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    ^this

  • khm001||

    Even if the next GOP president was literally a clone of Mother Teresa, Trump will be praised, so democrats can claim the Mother Teresa clone is Hitler.

  • Longtobefree||

    Resign and appoint Hillary President for Life while suspending the rest of the constitution . . . .

  • Eman||

    Consistency is a white value. Some cultures think winning is more important.

  • DavidTaylor||

    Well, I'm glad to see that David H has figured out why we have high gas prices, though I will challenge his supposition about liberals and gas prices.

    The dilemma is that the oil/gas industry has been remarkably successful in maintaining a curtain around the cost of producing gas, and the process for setting the price of gas. Some of us will remember that hurricane Katrina knocked out refineries in the Gulf, and gas prices soared, supposedly, according to Exxon/Mobil and Texaco/Shell, because of diminished production -- gas prices got nearly to $4 a gallon, and exceeded that in some markets. But when it turned out that those Gulf refineries were back online and prices did not drop, congress asked why, and the answers were a marvel of obfuscation. Well, it's the price of oil, which continues to rise. But, asked one congressman, if you, Exxon, drill the wells, pump the oil, and refine gas from it, what difference does the world price of a barrel make? Turns out that oil producers can sell their crude to their own refinery divisions at the global market price, in a wonderful example of profit-taking at every level. Then, when the price of a barrel of crude began to drop, and we were still seeing gas prices close to $3 a gallon, the excuse was Chinese demand. All this time, the media were reporting that Exxon/Mobil was making profits that set historic records -- but the company insisted that those unprecedented profits had nothing to do with the price of gas. Sure.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    30 year in the oil biz and I never got invited to one of those price conspiracy meetings. Bummer.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    David doesn't understand that refined gas is a commodity, or how commodity price speculation works. Instead he makes himself feel more clever with this conspiracy bullshit.

  • khm001||

    "the oil/gas industry has been remarkably successful in maintaining a curtain around the cost of producing gas, and the process for setting the price of gas"

    There is no "curtain". The price of gas is solely determined by supply and demand. Democrats artificially restrict supply in order to boost gas prices.

  • DavidTaylor||

    More on this, run up against the 1500 character rule:

    Now, liberal support for higher gas prices? Yes, to accomplish exactly the secret liberal agenda you mention: weaning Americans off such high levels of dependence on supply-limited fossil fuels, encouraging innovation in lower cost and renewal energy -- some of us even like nuclear power. You know, those goals that will destroy the fabric of liberty and democracy through a Marxist nightmare world of energy sustainability. But when the high price of gas simply adds to record-breaking profits for Big Oil, liberals are not persuaded.

    A final, psychological point. My next-door neighbor told me several years about the study he was contracted to conduct on behalf of a major oil producer -- it found that U.S. consumers would tolerate gas prices that nudged up against $4 a gallon without significant complaint, and that US consumers would not even notice gas prices at the $2.50 a gallon level -- despite the fact that there is little justification for setting gas prices higher than $1.25 today. So, yeah, liberals do object to higher gas prices, but with an eye to what is happening with the profits.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    All will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Virtually none of you likes nuclear power. And for such a supply constrained resource we sure have a lot of it these days. But if you really want to see just how badly liberal policies push costs onto consumer look no farther than the spike in heating costs this winter in NE because liberals blocked pipelines. And don't get me started on electricity costs in denmark, germany, and california.

    But sure, keep telling yourself it's those greedy corporations.

  • Longtobefree||

    Please repost with the links to your sources -
    little justification for setting gas prices higher than $1.25 today (Hint: your neighbor is not a reliable source)
    supply-limited fossil fuels (the known reserves of oil have actually increased due to new technologies. see at least Wikipedia.)

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Uh, you and David know that "reserves" has a strict definition that includes a price function. Raise crude prices to $500 a barrel, and reserves will increase by a factor of 10. Drop crude prices to $52 a barrel (equal to $1.25 per gallon for product--and assuming that refined gasoline comes out of the ground and require no costly refining, and ignoring transportation and retail costs), and reserves decrease. And while some volume of oil can be produced from existing fields with sunk costs for less than $50 a barrel, as that supply decreases, every new barrel requires exploration and development costs.

    And if your magic $1.25 includes state and federal taxes, about 50 cents per gallon on average, you are asking for refined gasoline to be available at your corner station for 75 cents. If you believe in that, you might as well wish for some more magical technology, like the car that runs on water. (That has a web site, too.)

  • DavidTaylor||

    Since your comment utterly misses the point, I don't feel any need to elaborate merely for your benefit. Fossil fuels are in limited supply even if new sources have been identified. As far as I understand science, no new oil is being created: Do you believe in magic?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    New oil is being created all the time. Do you not understand what fossil fuels are? Leave the science to non progressives, who are capable of understanding it.

  • khm001||

    "to accomplish exactly the secret liberal agenda you mention: weaning Americans off such high levels of dependence on supply-limited fossil fuels"

    First off, ALL resources are limited.

    Second, thank you for making clear democrats presume to know what's best for everyone else and manipulate markets to impose THEIR preferences on everyone else.

    Pro-tip: if you have to resort to using the violent power of the state to "encourage innovation" and hide costs in subsidies, so you can claim "lower cost", YOU'RE THE PROBLEM and your "innovation" makes society WORSE off.

  • mulp||

    As a liberal, I love the higher gas prices.

    I want them to be even higher.

    I agree with Trump that imports are stealing American jobs, and want Trump to put a $50 a barrel tariff on imported oil. Or at least $25 a barrel.

    With that, Trump might match Obama's success at increasing US oil production by another 5 million barrels per day. The only time oil production in the increased much since 1985 was while Obama was president, and it took place without big government giveaways to global corporations. Instead is was mostly on private land.

    Obama got the price higher by restricting supply with sanctions blocking oil imports (exports) plus costly regulation on Federal land. That allowed profits from paying an extra million workers to drill baby drill on private land and build ways of getting it to market, pipelines, railroads. And doubling the amount of natural gas available created hundreds of thousands of jobs building gas electric power plants and converting LNG import terminals to export LNG.

    People with jobs are forced to pay higher gas prices, unless they pay new workers to make an alternative like an electric or hybrid which eliminates or cuts the cost of high profit gasoline, profits going to foreign dictators who kill Americans, like Saudi Arabia. 15 Saudis flew the planes killing almost 3000 on 9/11.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But as a liberal, what about the POOR PEEPLES? The ghetto boys and the confused trans-gender liberal arts majors are not likely to join an expanding US oil industry. How will your fellow travelers deal with not only doubling retail gas prices at the pump, but doubling airfare (tough to fly to the next protest march) and increasing the costs of everything else.

    Unless your distinction of people with jobs having to pay higher prices implies an exclusion for people without jobs--what do they pay?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Holy fuck you are economically illiterate like a lot of liberals I've run across. Are you running for office?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "With that, Trump might match Obama's success at increasing US oil production by another 5 million barrels per day. The only time oil production in the increased much since 1985 was while Obama was president, and it took place without big government giveaways to global corporations. Instead is was mostly on private land."

    You clearly do not understand that 100% of the additional oil production was the result of permitting under the Bush administration, and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it, right? Oil production lags several years after permitting due to the lengthy time frame involved in setup and drilling.

    As you are a progtard, you are incapable of understanding things like science and economics.. Leave this to your betters.

  • Darth Soros||

    I like Instapundit's comment/caption about their link to this article: "Oceania has never been at war with cheap energy prices."

    There is no truth but socialist truth, comrade.

  • happy diwali images||

    it is a great article happy independence day images

  • rokky||

    this is great article for us. now you can chek out this one preet harpal lehnga lyrics

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online