Dems’ Energy Policy a Joke
The Democrats are bringing this up again.
With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, Senate Democrats want the government to grab some of the billions of dollars in profits being taken in by the major oil companies.
Senators were to vote Tuesday on whether to consider a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies and rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade.
Um. Yeah. So taxing the oil companies more will do what, exactly, to lower gas prices? And what will the windfall of taxes to the federal government be spent on?
But their total plan is even more of a joke. It has three pieces. Let’s look.
• Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
Fine, but the oil companies have been investigated dozens of times for price gouging and no evidence of price gouging has ever been found. This is meaningless.
• Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
Good luck with that. Last I checked, one country can’t sue another country under its own legal code. And if the Dems try, it would be setting the precedent for other countries to sue America for whatever they want under their legal code. This is also meaningless, but more dangerous.
• Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.
Have fun regulating this one. The market speculation is a problem, but it will fix itself in time - just like the housing market, tech bubble, etc. Government intervention in market fluctuations only serves to aggravate the problems.
How about a real energy policy? Something like more domestic drilling, more refineries, etc.
Nah, that’s crazy talk.
I’m all for going after the billions in subsidies, much of which is probably unnecessary or counter to our interests in the first place. However, I do agree that the proposal is mostly about politics. It won’t pass (or it’ll get vetoed), and then Democrats will have the ability to go on the road saying that Republicans sided with the oil companies.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2008 at 0837 hrs
It would really suck if neither party had an energy policy as your post above suggests. Fortunately Obama has an energy platform:
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030I don’t understand why the Dems waste their time with the foolishness you mentioned. It is too bad the Republicans are beholden to the oil industry and waste their time with the foolishness you support.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 0845 hrs
While most things that democrats propose are inefficatious, usually the mechanics of the marketplace are too complex for the average DASV to understand so they buy into what sounds good not knowing whether it will work.
These proposals are so wholey the WRONG prescription that I can’t believe democrats are stupid enough to propose them. In fact, I don’t even believe the democrats believe this will lower gas prices, they just want the opportunity to grab more money and power.
Sorry joe tax-payer, the dems don’t really give a shit about you. they love the power grab though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 0857 hrs
With the largest holder of oil company stocks being the national union pension funds, do you really think congress will grab the profits, and cut the union’s dividends?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 0858 hrs
Fortunately Obama has an energy platform:
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030What a bunch of absolutely baseless and ineffective puffery.
“invest in a clean enerty future”
What does that mean? More government regulation that will drive up costs? Thats a great solution.
Support Next Generation Biofuels
What does this mean? Spend more money on ethanol? Drive up food prices more? Great solution there.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Set America on a path to oil independence? WTF is that? Does that mean he’s going to drill more? GREAT. (yeah right). Just more symbolism over substance. “I’m Barack Obaba and I’m going to set america on the path to oil indepenence” Crowd Cheers. NOTHING HAPPENS. Just pure and total words without action or results
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Awesome… It must be nice to have the magic wand that Barack has. Just wave it and improve energy efficiency? Get real. If energy efficiency was so easy to come by don’t you think EVERY MANUFACTURER in the country would be doing it?
Can you imagine the demand for a truck that can actually haul something that got 50 miles to the gallon? The damn things would fly off the lot quicker than scrap metal on the street at 35th and Vliet.
There is nothing “fortunate” about Baracks energy platform. Its a whole lot of baseless talk and no action and nothing that would produce results.
Its pandering to the environmentalists and does NOTHING for the middle class but dangle false hope.
The generalities that Barackama talks about really only have a few things he could actually do to impliment them. He would throw taxpayer money at something and he could push for more regulation and higher EPA mandates. Both of which are just going to drive up prices.
Barackama is lying to the middle class and pandering to envirionmentalists. Its a power play. Puts control in the hands of the government and makes life harder for the average american. Many of whom are buying into his big lie and false hope.
Shameful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 0937 hrs
hmm
:zpopcorn:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1009 hrs
Awesome… It must be nice to have the magic wand that Barack has. Just wave it and improve energy efficiency? Get real. If energy efficiency was so easy to come by don’t you think EVERY MANUFACTURER in the country would be doing it?
Can you imagine the demand for a truck that can actually haul something that got 50 miles to the gallon? The damn things would fly off the lot quicker than scrap metal on the street at 35th and Vliet.
Really? Then why is GM closing plants? The technology has been around for a long time to boost fuel efficiency, yet they ignored it until we were on the verge of a freaking crisis.
Why do cars with 25, 30 even 40 percent more fuel efficiency operate around the world, while the nation built on state and interstate highway systems is covered with vehicles squeezing out 14 to 22 mpg?
This whole “let the market figure it out” is a great sound bite. But when dealing with finite resources that the entire country’s economy is dependent on, it is usually a good idea for government to create incentives for private industry to invest in technologies that will sustain in the long term, even at the cost of short term profits.
I’m no gear head, but when I bought my first car 17 years ago getting the one with the highest fuel efficiency was a no brainer for me. What was, and is, astonishing is the array of choices still available that burn through fuel like PacMan Jones going through singles at Crazy Horse Too.
The US automotive industry had no problem with the government regulations and tarriffs that kept their far inferior product competitive for that past 25 years. But now that people are talking about government regulation that would require an investment into more fuel efficient options, options that non-US makers have been manufacturing for decades, people throw a hissy fit.
Honda is introducing this to southern Cali later this summer…
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/press/
And I have no problem saying we damn well better see investments and incentives by federal and state governments to help business owners open up, or existing gas station owners convert, or whatever needs to be done, to create hydrogen refueling stations if that thing works half as well as the products Honda has been rolling off the line for the past 3 decades.
And I sure as hell hope that US automakers looking for a hand out are told to piss off unless they are following down the same high efficiency or alternative fuel path.
That’s the type of things I’m looking for in an energy policy. Expanding drilling and increasing refining capacity is sticking the proverbial finger in the dike.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1024 hrs
Lefty,
The pills you put in your gas tank do not work. Also, just so you know the magnets you put on your gas lines are also ineffectual. Sorry to break it to you.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 10, 2008 at 1030 hrs
xxpilot: Or... Maybe “invest in a clean energy future” means increasing funding for research and development into clean energy technologies. Maybe “support next generation biofuels” actually means providing incentives for the development of things like cellulosic ethanol—you know, an actual next generation biofuel that doesn’t have the food market implications of things like corn-based ethanol.
You act like these things literally have no meaning. Like they’re some kind of nonsensical word-salad that can be dismissed in an entirely content-free rebuttal. But in fact, their meaning is fairly clear.
If you’d like to actually engage some of these ideas instead of just mocking them, try this page as a primer to help you get started.
John McCain doesn’t seem to have a web page dedicated to energy, by the way. But he does have a page on climate change, which is nice. Check it out.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2008 at 1031 hrs
Lefty,
The pills you put in your gas tank do not work. Also, just so you know the magnets you put on your gas lines are also ineffectual. Sorry to break it to you.
You’re going to have to spell out the relevance of your joke to me, seeing as I didn’t make reference to any wives tales or urban myths.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1039 hrs
The only solution to our petroleum problem is using less petroleum. We don’t have a domestic supply that can have an appreciable effect on the price that is set by global demand.
There is ridiculous pandering on both sides of the aisle when it comes to energy policy, but the energy policy laid out by Obama comes closer to a solution than anything the Republicans have laid out.
Investing in alternatives and increasing efficiency standards are things we should have done 8 years ago. Continuing our reliance on a resource thats price is completely out of our control is baseless and ineffective puffery and does NOTHING for the middle class but dangle false hope.
Show me the data that explains how our domestic supply is going to have a meaningful effect on the price of gasoline (hint: It doesn’t exist). By the time the infrastructure is in place to bring new domestic supplies to market global demand will have kept pace with any additional supply we can make available.
Retrieving more domestic supply from places where local inhabitants aren’t opposed should happen, but it is not a solution. Simplifying the multitude of blends refineries are required to supply should be done, but it is not a solution.
I am open to anything that can solve our petroleum problem. The only policies that resemble a solution are coming from Democrats. They hurt their cause when wasting time talking about suing OPEC.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1044 hrs
What, in the name of all that is holy, would lead anyone to believe that any person or group of persons in the federal government are capable of identifying future energy needs or technologies and competent to spend billions to alter them?
Gas prices have been high for a few months. Boo hoo. That high price is the indicator needed by the private sector to implement new energies and new efficiencies. Screw up the price with subsidies and all you do is camoflage the indicator people need to make future decisions.
The government spending proposals are pork. The pork will be distributed to the usual recipients of pork and at best achieve nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1058 hrs
Gas prices have been high for a few months. Boo hoo.
Wow, I’m going to forward this to the McCain campaign! With a slogan like that, Cindy can start picking out curtains for the Lincoln bedroom!
Seriously, though. I agree with 3rd way when he says the only real solution to our oil problem is to use less of it. I’d like to see higher fuel efficiency standards and investment in replacement technologies—but I decided a while back that I could no longer ignore the real solution: we need to emulate Europe and go nuclear.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2008 at 1106 hrs
I agree with Scott, Obama and Bob Marley… we need more nuclear energy. Electric heating and transportation systems will be the norm in the 22nd century.
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
cause none of them can stop the time.-B. Marley
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1115 hrs
That’s exactly the point Scott. Obama’s “solution” is to piss away several hundred billlion on nothing in order to get elected and nothing more. Were he anyone else the words “slush fund” would be used to describe his policies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1127 hrs
Everything that the Democrats, most notably Obama, have and will propose lead to one solution: higher taxes.
All this smoke and mirrors about ‘bio-fuel’ this and ‘oil independence’ that is predicated on one basic idea - raise taxes.
And if anyone thinks those tax increases will not eventually be passed along to consumers at the pump, they’ve obviously inhaled too many fumes - both organic and petroleum based.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1153 hrs
Lefty,
You most certainly did refer to legends & myths when you imply GM can keep its SUV plants open and are only closing them because is not using technologies to make the vehicles more gas efficient.
As far as 3rd Way’s contention that increased domestic production is not going to help because by the time the production comes online demand will have increased. Well, it was about 10 years ago ANWR production was shot down in its closest bid to becoming reality. That production would probably be fully online by now. Now, I agree 3rd Way is correct that increased demand would consume extra production, but I would rather get as close to actual demand as is possible.
There is no doubt the real solution is to develop some sort of new energy paradigm, but as is pointed out there is no magic wand to be waved and poof we have hydrogen stations everywhere.
Where will the hydrogen come from? The two main sources are it is extracted from natural gas and the other is from water. Both carry costs. The natural gas source means less gas for heating our homes, extracting it from water means we have to have energy to split the water molecules apart, energy we use to light our homes and make aluminum.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 10, 2008 at 1153 hrs
Republican November strategy: Democrats like taxes, FTL!
Posted by scott on June 10, 2008 at 1247 hrs
You most certainly did refer to legends & myths when you imply GM can keep its SUV plants open and are only closing them because is not using technologies to make the vehicles more gas efficient.
Rereading what I wrote I can understand how you came to conclude that was my argument, but it wasn’t intended to be, so I will attempt to clarify.
xxpilot made the argument that if a better fuel efficient product was available then people would buy it. He used an exaggerrated example of a 50 mpg truck, but the point was basically that it is the lack of technology that has prevented more fuel efficient vehicle from being out on the market, not decisions made by leaders of the automotive industry.
My argument in return was that more fuel efficient vehicles have been available for some time, but American auto makers made the conscience decision to continue making cars in the same mold, and used their influence in DC to help create artificial markets that kept their product competitive with more efficient products from overseas.
I was not arguing that GM could retrofit their plant, a plant those who know claim was outdated even for the vehicles it was designed to produce, to make more fuel efficient cars overnight. I was arguing that a business decision was made some time ago, and then confirmed over and over again through the years, that GM would continue to make a product that was only viable so long as oil was cheap and free flowing.
The most recent spike in gasoline prices (btw - anyone remember Repubs calling it Gore Gas in 2000 when it almost reached $2 a gallon?) if nothing else is a reminder of how fragile our economy is as long as we rely on a finite resource.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1314 hrs
Scott,
At a time when people’s fears of their economic futures are on the rise it seems to me few will embrace tax hikes on anything and probably view such raises as harmful.
Also, the boo-hoo comment is said in a context sounding more like a Conservative voice than a Leftist voice. I too am in accord with the sentiment. Some years ago I heard a set of PSAs featuring Energy Squirrel telling us to turn our lights off and all of that jazz. I just rolled my eyes and thought someone does not regard us as much more than first graders wanting to get a pretty sticker for good behavior. This is why many environmentalists and others (i.e. Tom Friedman) are cheering for higher gas prices.
I would rather have cheap gas prices but if the goal is to develop another source of cheap energy then high prices will spur us onto that. It is not the fat and happy who lead to the new land but the skinny and desperate.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 10, 2008 at 1417 hrs
Obama wants to preserve the tax cuts for middle class Americans. He proposes, however, that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us be repealed. I think the American electorate will be just fine with that message. If your man feels different, bring it. We’ll see who ends up moving their stuff into 1600 Pennsylvania.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2008 at 1423 hrs
Lefty,
Your follow up is more sane. Your original wording had me thinking you were one of those who buy into the notion that the oil companies have prevented more fuel efficient autos by immoral means (ie. murder and the like).
In the years past, people grumbled when the price of gasoline rose but I still saw people dragging their trailer loads of ATVs, boats, jetskis, snowmobiles, etc up north. Reports came out saying no one was really reducing their use of gasoline. Well, we now have solid reports that gas consumption is dropping off.
The reason why automakers kept producing SUVs is simply because we kept demanding them with our dollars. If producers continue to make sufficient money on a product they will continue to provide that product. The only things they look for are how to make the product cheaper and how to convince people to spend more money on that product.
The expensive gasoline has people seriously rethinking their wants and needs when it comes to gasoline powered devices. As far as getting some other source of energy that will allow us to get off of limited hydrocarbons I fear (and hope it happens soon) it will take a random “Oh sugar” moment in a lab that leads to a very serendipitous and key discovery.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 10, 2008 at 1431 hrs
I don’t know if the Dems are real keen to preserve any tax cut. Rep. Foster Dem from Illinois put out a PR saying this current budget undoes a number of middle class tax cuts.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on June 10, 2008 at 1434 hrs
I don’t have anything against increased drilling or adding refinery capacity, per se. But I think we do need to recognize that those two policy items are, at best, a band-aid for a much larger question that needs a much larger answer. Furthermore, the sooner those resources get brought online, the sooner they will be gone, which only accelerates the need for effective alternatives to petroleum-based energy.
Democrats don’t seem to have an effective answer to the short-term issue of consumers struggling to adapt to higher gas prices. Republicans don’t seem to have an effective answer for the longer-term issue of moving towards alternative sources of energy.
Of course, the simplest answer to the short-term issue of oil prices is through monetary policy. Tighten lending and raise interest rates. The second the dollar becomes a worthwhile investment again, people will stop trading them in for commodities. But then again, Americans may not like the other effects that will undoubtedly have.
Marcus is also right to note that as long as Americans were fat and happy and had cheap and plentiful access to petroleum, we were never going to seriously consider developing alternatives to it - when sadly, that’s what we should have been planning for all along. To the extent that high gas prices will encourage modification of consumer behavior that could’ve been modified anyway, I have no complaints. Even if gas is a dollar a gallon, we should behave like it’s four dollars, in terms of being responsible consumers of resources and stewards of our environment.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 10, 2008 at 1449 hrs
The biggest reason the US companies produced trucks and SUVs in large numbers, is CAFE. As long as they didn’t count against the calculation, America could have its big comfortable ride. I can’t think of any other reason for a Lincoln or Cadillac SUV other than that the Town Cars and Fleetwoods had to be balanced with sardine can high MPG models, Much easier to make cars with some pep at 23 MPG than a car at 12 and another at 34 to balance it out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 1532 hrs
Hey Scott, your BDS is showing.
Investing in alternatives and increasing efficiency standards are things we should have done 8 years ago.
But not 12 or 16 years ago?
Posted by Deibert on June 10, 2008 at 1644 hrs
Obama wants to preserve the tax cuts for middle class Americans.
My first thought when I heard this this afternoon:
He will propose a percentage hike, then settle for something less. And then say it actually is a tax cut!
even though it will be a higher tax rate than we are paying now.
Its that government math.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 10, 2008 at 1727 hrs
He will propose a percentage hike, then settle for something less. And then say it actually is a tax cut!
My first thought after seeing your comment is that when this doesn’t happen the way you say it will, you still won’t admit you were wrong. It’s that ol’ “I hate Democrat math.”
Hey, Deibert. Your SDS is showing: It wasn’t I who made that comment. Besides, are you sure we couldn’t Google up some energy efficiency measures from the Clinton era (that you guys opposed)? Better check!
Posted by scott on June 10, 2008 at 1821 hrs
I hate to admit it but comparing the Republican energy policy with the Democrat policy is comparing Dumb and Dumber.
The sad fact is that neither has a real policy. “Barak supports the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius” is missing from 3rd Ways overview of Obama’s energy policy.
You can’t solve the future energy needs by preventing drilling or drilling more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 2003 hrs
The fact of the Bush tax cuts is that simply allowing them to expire would by definition be a GOP-sponsored tax increase. They were the ones who passed the law that reduced and then lowered taxes. If Dems stand pat and do nothing, then by definition they cannot be blamed for taxes going back to pre-2001 levels.
Second Galt is right and it’s pathetic that so few people realize it. Both parties have some truth and some B.S. in their arguments. It’s unfortunate and unreasonable partisanship that keeps people from agreeing to what seems like a fairly obvious middle ground.
“Oh, my party says do it? Well then it’s a good idea!”
Good grief.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2008 at 2106 hrs
My argument in return was that more fuel efficient vehicles have been available for some time,
Show me a fuel efficient semi-truck?
Show me a fuel efficient vehicle capable of towing around a skid steer or a cargo trailer.
Believe me if the technology existed to make a semi-truck that got 50 miles to the gallon they manufacturer would not be able to manufacture them fast enough.
You know lefty, there is a lot more to the equation than jus thaving everyone drive a Prius, which seems to be what you think will solve the worlds energy crisis.
Commerce doesn’t run on Prius… sorry.
The demand for alternatives is now HUGE. I guarantee many many many companies, scientists, entrepreneurs are devoting unprecedented resources into searching for alternative ways to address the problem.
All government need do to aid the process is remove regulations that inhibit looking at all alternatives.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could have a nuclear powered truck. Capable of driving from New York to Cali without ever stopping for fuel.
Maybe the technologies already exist, we just need to figure out how to use them better.
But just throwing more regulation and mandates on top of the issue is only going to drive up prices as the market must bend to accommodate those mandates, and once again, the consumer will pay for them.
And I have no problem saying we damn well better see investments and incentives by federal and state governments to help business owners open up, or existing gas station owners convert, or whatever needs to be done, to create hydrogen refueling stations if that thing works half as well as the products Honda has been rolling off the line for the past 3 decades.
Why do we need investment and incentives by the federal government? If a opportunity exists to do something better and cheaper why would it need any federal incentives at all? Remember those greedy businessman the left loves to hate? I got a secret for you. They’ll be ALL over opening hydrogen stations if consumers demand it.
If government has to get involved, its either a guarantee that the technology really IS NOT any better or more cost effective, OR government is making the rich richer. (and I’m fine with the rich getting richer by their own devices) but I’m not fine with the rich getting richer on tax revenue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1003 hrs
I hate to admit it but comparing the Republican energy policy with the Democrat policy is comparing Dumb and Dumber.
Well this should be a news flash for people that MAYBE its time to realize government has no magic wand, and government by and large is NOT CAPABLE of solving problems when it comes to demand and supply. People want what they want, and the market will deliver it.
Until the government figures out how to control peoples minds, wants, and desires, they’ll only futilely make problems worse.
Government can do some things VERY well, like protect peoples rights. It can do this because its easy to throw someone in jail. (to be simplistic about it)
But changing lawful behaviors, altering demand… IMPOSSIBLE
Though we have politician after politician who is willing to try. (all at taxpayer expense)
The free market solves problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1013 hrs
The main source of disagreement with you, xxpilot, at least for me, is that you seem to think that market forces invariably solve all problems. Which of course isn’t true. I’m sure you’d like to believe that seatbelt regulations actually hindered the cause of automobile safety, and that our food would be safer without the FDA, but such views can only charitably be described as “unique.” It’s simply not true that legislated fuel efficiency causes pollution, nor is it true that we can simply stand back and wait for the ol’ invisible hand to solve all our energy and environmental problems.
We are probably under-regulated compared with other western nations—many of whom are doing better solving these challenges than we are. Naturally market forces do most of the heavy lifting, but judicious government regulation with toothy enforcement is essential when dealing with certain kinds of problems.
It’s a continual source of frustration for me here that you guys think you are arguing with communists who don’t understand how the free market generates wealth, and who advocate complete government control of the economy. It’s pretty easy to win an argument against those folks—which explains the self-satisfied nature of many of the comments. But that debate was with the Soviet Union, not with us, and it was won decades ago. You’re actually arguing with your fellow capitalists. It just so happens that we recognize reality: market forces are inadequate to handle certain kinds of societal problems and they do not meet every need that we have.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1029 hrs
Exactly what western nation has lower gas prices, Scott? None?
It is your rampant anti-Americanism that is the source of your frustration, or maybe more precisely, your belief that because some European country is doing something it must be better.
The word communist was brought up only by you, which says a great deal all by itself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1052 hrs
I didn’t say anything about lower gas prices. But they do use less gas than we do. And they do generate power in greener ways (certainly the nuclear power Europeans do). They do have a comprehensive cap and trade system for emissions. This is what I mean when I say that they’re solving these problems more effectively than we are.
Furthermore, it’s entirely fair to point out that a lot of the conservative commenters here caricatureize the American left and make out that they are economically somewhere near Mao Tse-Tung and that their true goal is to do away with the free market economy. As I said, this is ludicrous. I don’t think you can win an argument against our actual positions—which is, I guess, why you guys engage in this tactic so frequently.
Finally, “anti-Americanism”? This is exactly what I’m talking about. See how you try to win arguments? Cheap. Weak. Pathetic.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1113 hrs
Lower gas prices was the point of the original post. We have all sorts of emission controls on vehicles and fuel dispensing facilities among other things. No evidence has been presented that anyone else is more effective nor has any rationale for any additional regulation been presented beyond the rationale of “Europe is doing it therefore it must be better”. That is the definition of anti-Americanism and it is repeated consistently by you. If you find it cheap, weak and pathetic look in the mirror to see its’ origin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1122 hrs
The main source of disagreement with you, xxpilot, at least for me, is that you seem to think that market forces invariably solve all problems. Which of course isn’t true.
No Scott, the free market doesn’t solve ALL problems when it comes to people and their needs, wants, and desires. But it does solve the ones that have a solution as best as possible.
And if a solution to a problem doesn’t exist in the market place, it sure isn’t going to be magically manufactured by government.
It just so happens that we recognize reality: market forces are inadequate to handle certain kinds of societal problems and they do not meet every need that we have.
Of course. Thats what police and courts are for. To protect individual rights by penalizing/throwing people in jail who violate those boundaries.
The rest of ‘societies’ problems are not solveable by government. Because government only has a few tactics at its disposal, the free market moves around those tactics, and in the end, delivers what the consumer wants. Albeit, sometimes with added cost to doing so because of the maneuvers aroung government mandates. Again, which the consumers pay for.
The only one that benefits from THAT kind of regulation is government. Government benefits government, not people.
I’m sure you’d like to believe that seatbelt regulations actually hindered the cause of automobile safety, and that our food would be safer without the FDA,
Seatbelt regulations are just more government intrusion. I was too young when those were implimented to really remember cars without them, but if people want to be safer in their cars they will demand seatbelts. Why would you make people wear seatbelts? Are you in favor of banning smoking too?
There is no helmet law in wisconsin and millions of wisconsin motorcyclists pay a couple hundred dollars for a helmet and wear it. And it didnt’ take some government law and millions of dollars to make that happen.
There is no requirement to wear a helmet on a pedal bike, but almost everyone does?
Please explain to me why we needed seatbelt regulations? Please?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1134 hrs
But they do use less gas than we do.
Scott, Europe is nothing like the US. Geographically its completely different. Culturally its completely different.
This is what I mean when I say that they’re solving these problems more effectively than we are.
I concur with BV’s last post in response.
Here we are talking about energy prices as the problem. Europe is NOT solving those problems any better.
So if what you want to to culturally change the unites states, just say it? Jeez, talk about heavy handed government. If I loved the European culture and geography so much I’d move there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1141 hrs
I’m sure you’d like to believe that seatbelt regulations actually hindered the cause of automobile safety, and that our food would be safer without the FDA, but such views can only charitably be described as “unique.” It’s simply not true that legislated fuel efficiency causes pollution, nor is it true that we can simply stand back and wait for the ol’ invisible hand to solve all our energy and environmental problems.
Scott, you deviated from xxpilot’s original statement.
government by and large is NOT CAPABLE of solving problems when it comes to demand and supply.
He’s talking about price, due to Supply and Demand, and you get off into safety issues and pollution. If you stay on topic when replying, you might be more effective in communicating your point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1203 hrs
You know lefty, there is a lot more to the equation than jus thaving everyone drive a Prius, which seems to be what you think will solve the worlds energy crisis.
This reminds me of a saying I’ve heard a few time…
I know you think you know what I mean based on what you thought I said. But I don’t think you understand that what you thought you heard me say is not what I intended to mean when I said what I actually said.
I’m sure I butchered that somewhat, but you get the point.
I made two posts talking about the decisions by American manufacturers over the past two decades to take a pass on more fuel efficient vehicles, and the fact that those decisions to continue to invest in a product, one that we all knew had a limited shelf life, at the expense of investing in research and development of longer term alternatives is killing US automakers.
No where did I say everyone in the nation should drive a Prius. But even with the short comings of the Prius (nickel battery, still reliant on gas, etc) it sure seems like the nation wants to drive a Prius.
US manufacturers used their political capital to artificially extend the viable marketability of their product. The efforts the Fed put into keeping US automakers afloat with their poor product should have been used to encourage research and investment in technology that would thrive in the free market in the long term.
That was my argument.
Again, 17 years ago, when I bought my first car, I would have jumped at the opportunity for 40 or 45 mpg. As it were I bought a used car that got 32 on the highway.
Yes others would have wanted the traditional big engine American car, others would’ve wanted or needed the power of trucks, and those markets would have still needed to have been met.
But the demographic I was/am a part of was the growing one. As evidence that it now takes a 5 month wait to get a new Prius, and that wait time is growing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1211 hrs
I would suggest actually driving a Prius before buying one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1245 hrs
You can’t solve the future energy needs by preventing drilling or drilling more.
You know… nothing directed at you personally, but I hear this bullshit ALL the time. Every joe nobody on the street thinks he’s a geological engineer.
So first we have the eternal dismissers and pessimists telling us its not worth drilling in ANWR because there is only 10 or 20 years worth of oil there… Then we have people saying stuff like below: (that we shouldn’t drill on the outer continental shelf)
And you take all of this together and it amounts to one thing. People who DON’T know shit talking out of their ass and dismissing solutions that industry professionals… EXPERTS believe exist.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.htmlAccording to Peterson’s office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
“Tapping America’s huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices,” Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: “With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it’s a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed.”
Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.
How could drilling have been unsuccessful in driving down costs when WE HAVEN’T BEEN DRILLING! ITS BEEN BANNED!
“The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we’ve got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas,” Manuel said, adding “since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we’ve tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn’t worked.”
How these “environmentalists” get so much intellectual authority by the press I have NO idea.
Here we’ve got companies ready to drill and explore. No government money needed, and people are standing in the way, while out of the same side of their mouth blaming others for high gas prices? shameful
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1302 hrs
it sure seems like the nation wants to drive a Prius.
You’re high on your own arrogance.
The nation doesn’t want to drive a prius. We loved SUV’s. NOT because:
US manufacturers used their political capital to artificially extend the viable marketability of their product.
You’re out of your mind.
The ‘market’ for SUV’s and larger vehicles was not a product of government.
You’re perception of the government “artificially extending teh viable market” is WAY off base and just flat out ignorant.
The fact is people LOVED a roomy vehicle that had good ground clearance and view of the road and that could pull a trailer from home depot, fit a sheet of plywood in the back, pull a boat to the lake, and do so in comfort and ease.
it sure seems like the nation wants to drive a Prius.
The nation doesn’t WANT to drive a Prius. They are being FORCED to drive Prius by high fuel prices.
So don’t confuse want and necessity Lefty.
Now I know you are OK with it.
You and your self-centered “how I live my life is how everyone should live their life” view of the world is as selfish as it is bullheaded.
Not everyone wants to live on the east side where they can bike to work.
Not everyone’s idea of entertainment on a saturday afternoon is walking from their east-side house or their Tosa house down to an outdoor cafe and sipping a latte all afternoon.
Some people want to get away from the congenstion of the city and enjoy the wildlife. (you know, that wildlife that all you lefty environmentalists seem so concerned with protecting, though noone will be able to afford to travel to go see it anymore)
I speak not for myself cause fuel prices haven’t affected my behavior at all. They just make me muse at how much more I’m spending to do the same things I use to.
But your attitude that the country wants to drive a prius and pejorative comments about auto manufacturers is off base.
They gave people what they wanted.
Thats not a crime Lefty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1315 hrs
I would suggest actually driving a Prius before buying one.
Are there cars you would suggest people buy without taking it out for a test spin at minimum?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1324 hrs
xxpilot, you seem to be saying that market forces alone solve all problems in the best possible way—except for police, courts and some inherently unsolvable problems. If I have this right, well, I think you’re nuts.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1330 hrs
I suspect people are lining up to buy the Prius without driving one. I have the opportunity to test drive a lot of cars and the Prius is underwhelming. It’s really a car for one person, two small people tops. I couldn’t imagine buying one under any circumstance. If I were to buy a car on the basis of fuel economy, there are some diesels that are far better cars than the Prius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1341 hrs
No Scott, your lack of reading comprehension and desire to paint me into a corner have again led you astray.
I believe I specifically stated that when it comes to supply and demand and problems that CAN be solved, government cannot and has never been able to efficaciously create a desired effect without a corresponding side effect (that is always born by the consumer)
Lastly, I’m getting really tired of responding to your assertions but having you never respond to mine. (and this dates back to the thread where you defined “poor” for me and then never wanted to discuss it when I took your definition and proved my point with it)
Your incessant habit of ignoring the points that you have no ‘comeback’ for by deflecting and distracting the debate with misquotes and pejorative misrepresentations of peoples positions is boring.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1341 hrs
I’m still trying to nail down your position. So you believe that “when it comes to supply and demand” (as opposed to what, exactly?), and when it comes to “solvable” problems (as opposed to which other ones?), government may be able to provide solutions—but only at a cost.
I’m parsing this out as best I can, but it seems to boil down to the fact that you have a much, much lower confidence in the idea that government action can effectively solve problems than I do. You don’t believe that it never can, and I don’t believe that it always can. But we have radically different ideas about the scope of problems which government solutions can profitably be brought to bear upon.
I, for instance, believe that the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is probably much more efficiently dealt with by imposing an emissions trading system. You, I guess, believe that a more efficient way to deal with it is to simply wait for markets to demand less smoke with their power and other manufactured products.
I believe that government safety standards in automobiles has done an enormous public good by mandating crash test standards and so on. You apparently believe that this benefit would have been brought about more quickly or more cheaply if we simply waited for people to demand that their autos be built this way.
Have I got it right or wrong?
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1357 hrs
xxpilot,
How many people do you think are jumping from SUV’s to a Prius?
I’m not talking about SUV’s vs Prius. I’m talking about how US manufacturers over the last two to three decades made cars with gas mileage and longevity ratings that were well below what Honda, Toyota and Volkwagon were putting out. US regulatory and trade policy kept US manufacurers afloat with inferior products by making them price competitive.
As a separate issue US manufacturers decided to dominate the market by making the best SUV’s in the world. That was fine, as a significant portion of the market desired these vehicles, a portion that grew with cheaper and cheaper gasoline.
My point is that might not have been too hard to look into the future and say, hmm, as a business model making a product that at some point will become increasingly impractical for the consumer as the cornerstone of our industry might not be such a great idea. Maybe I am arrogant and bullheaded, but I just don’t think that the current situtation we were in was that hard to foresee as inevitable 20 years ago, especially by people who were in the industry.
And yes, people want a Prius. Why? Because when facing a decision on how to use their disposable income gas prices have made it so the SUV or the mini-van or trucks are no longer practical for recreational purposes. So now more people want a Prius.
You know who else wants a Prius? People that had no use or desire for an SUV or a truck or a mini-van before there was a gas crisis. So suddenly there are a whole lot of people who want Prius’.
BTW - Thanks for the description you gave of me in your rant. It helps explain who you are debating. Just to clarify a few things for you though.
I don’t own or want to own a Prius.
I need a car to get to and from work
I do however manage to enjoy the “wildlife” without owning an SUV, and that includes boats with motors.
While I support sensical environmental policy, I’m not an “environmentalist” in any left wing use of the word.
I don’t drink latte’s, hell I don’t even drink coffee (which we found from Obama’s campaign makes me unAmerican in someway).
Spending a Saturday afternoon at an outdoor cafe sounds awful, unless by cafe your mean bar, or by outside you mean at the stadium.
It is obvious you have your own preconceived notions about what anyone arguing an issue from the left must be like. But it might surprise you that the differences between all of us are pretty freaking minor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1403 hrs
I suspect people are lining up to buy the Prius without driving one. I have the opportunity to test drive a lot of cars and the Prius is underwhelming. It’s really a car for one person, two small people tops. I couldn’t imagine buying one under any circumstance. If I were to buy a car on the basis of fuel economy, there are some diesels that are far better cars than the Prius.
Really? I had a different impression.
I’ve Never driven one. I’ve only been inside one once for about 10 minutes, and I was suprise at how roomy it was. I’m 6’4” and had ample leg room and head room in front. The backseat might’ve been less comfortable for all I know, but the person who owned it has a family of four, drives about 35 miles a day, plus occassional commutes to Chicago, and was talking up the space it has for kids, groceries, suitcases, etc.
My impression of the hatch/trunk space was that is was less than what I prefer, but that it wasn’t bad if you didn’t use it for camping or to take the family cross country or something.
The downside that caught my eye was that the dash and other controls seemed kinda cheap compared to the quality the car appears to have on the outside. I might be more critical of other components if I was investigating it as a potential purchase though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1414 hrs
It’s cheap inside, and for driving on the highway I would never use one. It’s performance with more than one person goes down pretty rapidly.
For a one person commuter car it could be OK, but I’ve driven stuff that’s way better for the same application. Some of the new diesels are pretty amazing, although I wouldn’t buy a diesel either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1422 hrs
Something occured to me today… The Democrats have this HUGE problem drilling for oil because it would ruin the landscape and habitat of…-insert species of the moment here-
And yet they are perfectly willing to allow the State of Wisconsin to erect the GOD awful looking 230ft high “windmills” in and around the Eden and Mayville areas. (These things can be seen for at LEAST 15 miles BTW).
Now certainly some bird or insect is going to end up maimed or killed by these huge 130ft blades, not to mention the fact that all these poor deer and wild animals will no longer have a place to live….and to this I ask, you are all outraged over drilling in ANWAR, but have no problem destroying trees, and animal habitats for 250 windmills? Why is this?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 11, 2008 at 1451 hrs
a) because the direct environmental impact isn’t equivalent, as you seem to suggest. b) because wind power has other benefits such as having no greenhouse gas emissions.
Me, I don’t have “huge” problems with drilling some new holes. I’d go along with it if it were actually shown to have a significant impact on either price or dependence on foreign sources. But the things I’ve seen indicate that it will do basically nothing for these issues. I mean, if you could say it would reduce imported oil by 50% or that it would result in a 10% price drop, hey, that’s a fairly compelling argument.
Meanwhile, it’s doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, it does have environmental impact.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1458 hrs
a) because the direct environmental impact isn’t equivalent, as you seem to suggest.
How do you figure? Roads had to be built to get to the places where the towers had to be built, trees had to be cut down, there were ponds and marshes in this area that had to be drained to allow the roads to be built, and then there is the matter of getting the trucks into the site that carried the components from the Port of Milwaukee.
Sounds like quite an enviornmental impact to me. Not to mention that you can see the stupid things from 10miles in either direction.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 11, 2008 at 1504 hrs
And I say it’s not equivalent. Can you prove that it is? I’m prepared to be wrong if you have that information.
Plus I don’t really care a lot about what it does for the view.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1510 hrs
What are we comparing just so I can make an apple to apples comparison?
Plus I don’t really care a lot about what it does for the view.
You should really get your nose outta the books every now and then and drive past it once…
What would it take to get you to admit that wind farms are POSSIBLY just as damaging as drilling in ANWAR? Amount of access roads constructed? Number of trees chopped down? Number of animal species in this area? You tell me…..
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 11, 2008 at 1518 hrs
What would it take to get you to admit that wind farms are POSSIBLY just as damaging as drilling in ANWAR?
It would take something more than someone just asserting it in the comments of a conservative blog. Give me a reliable source on that assessment. Someone who knows what they’re talking about.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1521 hrs
How do you figure? Roads had to be built to get to the places where the towers had to be built, trees had to be cut down, there were ponds and marshes in this area that had to be drained to allow the roads to be built, and then there is the matter of getting the trucks into the site that carried the components from the Port of Milwaukee.
Sounds like quite an enviornmental impact to me. Not to mention that you can see the stupid things from 10miles in either direction.
First, I’m not opposed to drilling, especially for some enviro reason, I just don’t think it is a solution, and talking about it as a long term energy policy is a distraction.
But to the point…
Ponds and marshes are being drained? Don’t you want to put these up on high land and in open plains to get the most direct wind? Most of the ones I’ve seen are on current or old farm land, or in a wide open space. Not in low lying marsh areas, or anywhere significant clear cutting needed to be done.
The eye sore thing is debatable I guess. They don’t seem intrusive to me, but I can understand those whom find them to be.
But as for the rest. I’m with scott, I would love a greater understanding of how they are raping the environment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1526 hrs
Well would it help if I told you that I actually trucked in about 7500 tons of the stone used to build the access roads to this project that particular project, or would that be just asserting it on a conservative blog?
Besides you don’t seriously believe that these things just suddenly that these giant windmills just pop up in the middle of the night do you? With absolutely NO enviornmental damage what so ever do you?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 11, 2008 at 1530 hrs
Actually damage is the wrong word to be using. I should be using the term impact.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 11, 2008 at 1532 hrs
would it help if I told you that I actually trucked in about 7500 tons of the stone used to build the access roads to this project
That’s interesting, but it’s not a real comparison to anything, is it? Were you trucking this stuff up into a wildlife preserve? Were there associated buildings and other development that had to occur? Is there a big, fat pipe to lay across the land with roads to service it, too, maybe? Chance of damaging leaks?
C’mon. I don’t know what all the factors are in drilling oil in ANWAR. And you probably don’t either. But yet you seem convinced that it’s similar to erecting some wind turbines in, say, rural Sheboygan county.
Besides, even if that were true it doesn’t follow that environmentalists would have to throw up their hands and say “oh, it’s the same thing so drill away!” There’s the whole fact that one is oil and the other is wind—regardless of the development impact. There’s still a huge difference in the consumption end, environmentally.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2008 at 1540 hrs
Thanks for the description you gave of me in your rant. It helps explain who you are debating. Just to clarify a few things for you though.
I’m not here to define who you are. But I will be happy to stand by my comparisions to demonstrate that the “solutions” that you speak of in terms of fuel efficient vehicles are not solutions for many americans.
I make way too much money to cry over fuel prices (but I do it anyway) but my best friend is a carpenter in Delavan. Gas prices hurt him huge. He drives a big pick-up that he needs for tools and his trailer etc.
And if you aren’t the lefty environmentalist east-sider who doesn’t care about gas prices because you live/work/eat/sleep/shit/and entertain yourself in the same zip code then i’ll apologize for my assumption and re-direct my ‘rant’ at your views and people who embrace them.
Simply mandating fuel efficiency standards isn’t going to solve any problem. The demand for fuel efficient vehicles is now there. If science can’t bring them to us, government mandates are just going to result in the consumer getting squeezed somewhere. JUST like emission standards.
Look at what the governement has done to Diesel. It use to be the best of both worlds. Cheaper, better gas mileage. Now the governemnt has put standards in place that make it more expensive to refine and less efficient. Driving up the cost. Thanks uncle sam… You’re a peach.
And yes, people want a Prius. Why? Because when facing a decision on how to use their disposable income gas prices have made it so the SUV or the mini-van or trucks are no longer practical for recreational purposes. So now more people want a Prius.
If cars ran on air, NOONE would own a Prius. We can play semantics all day, about a need vs. a want, but my point is that if the world runs out of gas, we have no choice but to do something different. But in the meantime, there are SO many things that we could be doing to lower the cost of fuel so that people could drive what has the best utility for them instead of what they are forced to drive because of gas prices.
So if the market dictates that gas is 5 bucks a gallon I accept that.
What I don’t accept is all the government intervention in the marketplace over the past 30 years (today democrats) blocking bills (like today) that would allow the market place and industry to pursue ALL options to bring cost effective profitable solutions to consumers so that consumers can live their lives with as much freedom to do “whatever” as possible. And then those same government power-grabbers talking about “fuel efficiency” standards and mandates that shackle companies and shackle consumers when it doesn’t have to be like that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1543 hrs
Look at what the governement has done to Diesel. It use to be the best of both worlds. Cheaper, better gas mileage. Now the governemnt has put standards in place that make it more expensive to refine and less efficient. Driving up the cost. Thanks uncle sam…
Exactly… thank you very much Uncle Sam! Switching to low sulfur diesel was one of the best thing we could have done. Sure it jacked up the price and it made existing diesel engines less efficient, but it opened up the American auto market to the super efficient diesel engines that have been available in Europe but not available here because of the antiquated blend of diesel the oil companies offered. If the government didn’t mandate it why would the oil companies switch? In a few monthes you will be able to buy a Jetta that can get more than 50 miles to the gallon. BMW is planning on releasing a 5 series that gets better mileage than a prius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1607 hrs
Well I’m sorry I don’t share your enthusiasm because jetta’s and bmw’s don’t pull semi-trailers and boats around.
And the brand new diesel engines on the ULSD do NOT get better mileage than the older ones.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1630 hrs
Trees grow back and swamp land isn’t in short supply. Just admit that you don’t want any power generation solutions at all and want us to return to kerosene lamps, Horse & Buggy and candles.
Wait there’s a place you can go live like that and not bother the rest of us…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1649 hrs
You say you will argue against my views, but then you post this…
Simply mandating fuel efficiency standards isn’t going to solve any problem. The demand for fuel efficient vehicles is now there. If science can’t bring them to us, government mandates are just going to result in the consumer getting squeezed somewhere. JUST like emission standards.
What I’ve been talking about goes back into the 70’s and 80’s. I’m talking about the Fed bailing out Chrysler. I’m talking about Reagan negotiating caps on Japanese imports. I’m talking about US Auto makers choosing government handouts and government intervention to prop them up while they were getting slammed by a better product. Then, once they started making profits again, (because competition was cut more than their product was improved) they went down the same road of making products that weren’t sustainable in the market over the long term as the cornerstone of their industry.
You argued the market corrects. I’m arguing government clearly didn’t let in the 70’s and 80’s and US auto didn’t learn from those mistakes and ended up being the king of the SUV when oil prices started to skyrocket today.
As opposed to the type of government intervention implemented then, I would have rather those same resources and protections have been offered to US auto makers who were forward thinking. I think the latter is a better investment, and much less expensive for the taxpayer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 1659 hrs
It seems to me that the Republicians point of view on an Energy policy-at least on this blog-seems to include a combination of both drilling and a need for alternate sources.
While the Democratic Point of view seems to be NO DRILLING ANYWHERE because it may only yield a supply that will only last 10-20 years, and yet they piss and moan about the high gas prices and the reliance on foreign oil.
They also say that the Government should give more money to companies to come up with alternate energy solutions. To which I ask one question:
If the Government is GIVING anyone (be it a Business or an individual), where is the motive to actually bring a product to market? Because once you bring a product to market you lose all that “free” government money.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 11, 2008 at 2052 hrs
If the Government is GIVING anyone (be it a Business or an individual), where is the motive to actually bring a product to market? Because once you bring a product to market you lose all that “free” government money.
Um, an opportunity to make money?
I don’t think tax incentives or government grants are the type of thing a person can live on, much less have an entire corporation survive on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 2100 hrs
It seems to me that the Republicians point of view on an Energy policy-at least on this blog-seems to include a combination of both drilling and a need for alternate sources.
Actually, my point of view is to not drill now, and then when everywhere else is dry, then we drill into our supplies. While our supply is dwindling, we let the rest of the world convert to some other fuel source while we take notes. Or we sell our fuel source at a premium to fund our conversion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2008 at 2308 hrs
I don’t think tax incentives or government grants are the type of thing a person can live on,
Wow!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 0835 hrs
the Democratic Point of view seems to be NO DRILLING ANYWHERE because it may only yield a supply that will only last 10-20 years,
I think you misrepresent our position. (Mine, anyway.) I’m not against drilling because it would “only last 10-20 years.” I’m against it because even during those 10-20 years it would be a tiny drop in the bucket of our energy needs. And it would do virtually nothing to lower our prices or our dependence on foreign sources of oil. In fact, i’ve heard some experts say that oil from these new sources would almost certainly be exported to Asia and not affect the domestic market at all. So basically we’d be making some pretty meaningful concessions with regard to the environment in terms of the cost of developing these sources, for pretty much no actual gain on our energy and political fronts. As I said before, I’ve never heard any trustworthy expert say that drilling up ANWR would displace a quarter of our imported oil, or even anything remotely like that. If it did, I’d be willing to consider it.
Meanwhile, i think we need to focus on two things.
1. We need to reduce consumption. Yeah, this does mean mandating stiffer fuel efficiency standards in automobiles, and yes, it does mean implementing a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.
2. We need to invest in newer, safer nuclear energy production.
Notice how drilling for new domestic oil doesn’t really figure into these? It doesn’t involve invading other countries, either. Nor does it reduce us all to living in trees.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 0844 hrs
Yeah, this does mean mandating stiffer fuel efficiency standards in automobiles,
This is the key part of your arguement that I have a disagreement with. You can’t mandate something that doesn’t exist (technologically) without hurting average citizens. You’re either going to have carpenters trying to work out of the back of a Prius being less productive and having a harder time doing their job or some other unintended consequence.
Thats what is such bullshit about just “mandating” something. There is no magic wand. Government can wave its uncaring broad brush and make a law… but it doesn’t change the scientific realities.
I fail to understand why we as a country CONTINUALLY punish ourselves needlessly. We need more refineries, we need more exploration, we need more drilling, we need more of a lot of things. Why not let companies DO IT. If they want to invest the money in it, I am SURE they think its worth while. Just let them. Its no skin of joe-liberals back to let companies go at these things.
I’m not against drilling because it would “only last 10-20 years.” I’m against it because even during those 10-20 years it would be a tiny drop in the bucket of our energy needs. And it would do virtually nothing to lower our prices or our dependence on foreign sources of oil. In fact, i’ve heard some experts say that oil from these new sources would almost certainly be exported to Asia and not affect the domestic market at all. So basically we’d be making some pretty meaningful concessions with regard to the environment in terms of the cost of developing these sources, for pretty much no actual gain on our energy and political fronts. As I said before, I’ve never heard any trustworthy expert say that drilling up ANWR would displace a quarter of our imported oil, or even anything remotely like that. If it did, I’d be willing to consider it.
Please quote your sources for these experts. Its not just ANWR, its off-shore drilling.
Nearly EVERY country in the world that has the geography that we have here in the US is sitting on a shit-load of oil. We probably are too, and I’d LOVE to see you quote some experts who say it wouldn’t make a damn difference.
As I pointed out in Post 42, I don’t accept some dude from the Sierra club saying “oh there isn’t that much oil” as an expert opinion.
If there isn’t that much oil then WHAT is the harm in letting companies go looking?
You guys hate oil companies. If they want to “waste” their money let them. Logic would dictate that there is lots of oil to be had.
Again… we punish ourselves needlessly
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 0908 hrs
“We need to reduce consumption.” Why?
“We need to invest in newer safer nuclear energy production.” Why? Nuclear power will take years to bring on line, forces a decentralized country to adopt long term centralized energy production, carries an enormous safety risk and creates a currently unsolved waste problem.
These policies aren’t energy policies. They are policies to combat a fictional global warming problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 0916 hrs
You can’t mandate something that doesn’t exist (technologically)
What, automakers don’t know how to make vehicles that get 30 mpg? Seems to me like they do. This isn’t wishful thinking—it exists on every showroom floor.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 0919 hrs
Now I get it. In your world global warming is a hoax, a myth and “fictional.”
Shit, it’s no wonder you guys have no frickin’ idea how to deal with any of this.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 0922 hrs
What, automakers don’t know how to make vehicles that get 30 mpg? Seems to me like they do. This isn’t wishful thinking—it exists on every showroom floor.
Scott, for the 15th time in this thread (between you and lefty)
The vehicles of business aren’t capable of making 30mpg.
Semi, pick-ups, delivery trucks, etc etc.
You just don’t get it. REAL changes in engine efficiency have only netted small increases in efficiency. MOST of the gains in fuel efficiency have come by simply making tiny tiny cars that have less power and better aerodynamics.
GREAT for moving a person from point a to point b. NOT GOOD for people and businesses that have cargo to haul and move. And thats everyone from the landscaper down the road to the furniture store, to UPS to Schneider National.
Your “mandates” are going to leave those people high and dry with either no vehicles capable of conducting their business in.
In case you haven’t noticed the people who CAN make a switch have:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365714,00.html
High Gas Prices Driving Midsize SUVs to Extinction
How about that Scott and Lefty. NO government mandate. The marketplace is adjusting just fine.
Now you guys want to put the screws to the guys who can’t adjust. The carpenters, the contractors, the delivery businesses, UPS, FED-EX etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 0931 hrs
It’s already been dealt with, Scott. Look around you. People and businesses are already dealing with energy prices and usage. The short term high market price of gas is one of the indicators they needed to make those decisions.
Your “solutions” are yet more government subsidies to lock the country into obsolete and inefficient use of resources. They mandate the outdated and prevent inovation, something that the US has always dominated. And no, global warming has not been demonstrated to exist and for the greatest country in the world to go tilting after windmills is folly
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 0942 hrs
1. We need to reduce consumption. Yeah, this does mean mandating stiffer fuel efficiency standards in automobiles, and yes, it does mean implementing a cap and trade system for carbon emissions.
2. We need to invest in newer, safer nuclear energy production.
Notice how lowering the price of oil doesn’t really figure into these? It would be faster to increase refining capacity and drill in the postage stamp size area of the entire ANWR that holds the oil. Faster than investing in newer, safer nuclear energy. Hey, guess what, we still don’t know what to do with the spent fuel from that. Once we figure the final cost of that material handling, as well as the environmental impact back into the cost of nuclear energy, my guess is that it will be higher than oil.
Hey scott, we’ve been drilling and pulling oil from the North Slope / Prudhoe Bay for 20 + years now. Guess what, the wildlife is still there, the area is still pristine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 0955 hrs
Notice how lowering the price of oil doesn’t really figure into these?
Perhaps. But consuming less inherently means paying less—even if the price remains the same. Meanwhile, plans to drill up wildlife preserves do nothing on any of these fronts, price included.
we still don’t know what to do with the spent fuel
Look up the term “breeder reactor,” and understand that European nations have been using them for decades with far less of a waste problem than US plants have had. No solution is perfect, but i’d rather deal with a small amount of nuclear waste than either global warming or living in caves.
Guess what, the wildlife is still there, the area is still pristine.
Convince the Sierra Club and the EPA—then we’ll talk. Be that as it may, I still don’t see a reason to drill in these areas if it’s not going to do anything for price or pollution or dependence on foreign sources. It’s a distraction from the real solutions which I have enumerated above—and possibly a sop to oil companies who intend to sell what they find to other countries.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1009 hrs
But consuming less inherently means paying less—even if the price remains the same. Meanwhile, plans to drill up wildlife preserves do nothing on any of these fronts, price included.
But supplying more means lower price, even if paying remains the same. Meanwhile, nuclear and more mandated efficiency requirements do nothing on any of these fronts, paying included.
No solution is perfect, but i’d rather deal with a small amount of nuclear waste than either global warming or living in caves.
Do it then. I’d rather let the market correct itself on this issue than throw my hands in the air and ask the government to make it worse.
Convince the Sierra Club and the EPA—then we’ll talk.
Fuck you too. Isn’t that what you mean?
Be that as it may, I still don’t see a reason to drill in these areas if it’s not going to do anything for price or pollution or dependence on foreign sources.
So far, you haven’t even convinced any one in this thread of that, yet you’re demanding that I convince some slanted third parties before even talking to you? You are an arrogant prick.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1039 hrs
I wish people would stop trying to convince Scott and Lefty of anything. It is quite clear that the left will not believe almost anything that doesn’t fall into to their seemingly limited viewpoint of how things are, could be, or should be.
It is also very clear that the left is in bed with the environmentalists, as we could of began the drilling for U.S. oil over 10 years ago and possibly seen a reduced dependency on foreign oil. Now that we’re in the situation we’re in, both sides have their own bickering points; “it wouldn’t have helped now anyway”, and “If we would’ve done it then we wouldn’t be here now”.
Personally, I think we need to let U.S. companies explore and drill where needed to reduce dependency while pushing alternative energy research. Because it’s not much use to bring an alternative online if it’s not efficient or cost effective (read: ethanol in it’s current form.)
I’m sure there’s a role for gov’t in there, but it should be very, very limited.
Note: This is a layman’s view of the issue. So, comment on the issue or (as some like to say.) bugger off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1305 hrs
But supplying more means lower price, even if paying remains the same. Meanwhile, nuclear and more mandated efficiency requirements do nothing on any of these fronts, paying included.
Supplying more would generally mean lower cost, given the same demand. However, the “increase” we’re talking about here would a) be so negligible as to not have an meaningful impact, and b) I heard it would likely be sold to the Asian market anyway. Nuclear power might not lower cost—I really don’t know. But I do know that it doesn’t contribute to global warming. So yeah, it does affect at least one of these fronts.
Do it then.
I don’t think we can wait for some enterprising person to invest hundreds of millions into a nuclear power plant which won’t be online for a decade unless they have some kind of government help or guarantees or assurances or tax breaks. Something. I’d be surprised to learn that any coal plant was built without similar help. In either case, we can’t wait for it to happen. We need to kick start it. At the very least we need to modernize existing law and regulation to get out of the way of new nuclear power generation.
Fuck you too. Isn’t that what you mean?
No. If I meant that I’d say it. I’m not shy. What I meant is that the burden is on you (who want to allow this development) to demonstrate that the impact is worth it. And, yes, I would like to hear it from someone who I trust more than an oil company. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that I not have to take your unsubstantiated word for it, either.
So far, you haven’t even convinced any one in this thread of that
This is the kind of thing I’ve read about it. This is what I’m talking about.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1426 hrs
And, yes, I would like to hear it from someone who I trust more than an oil company.
Who is going to be more of an expert about the location, amount, value, and future of oil than the oil companies? It’s what they do for a living. If you wanted to know about farming, wouldn’t you talk to farmers? If you wanted to know about accounting, wouldn’t you talk to an accountant?
The fact is that the oil companies pour billions of dollars into researching oil and other energy. Your average think tank isn’t going to have that kind of knowledge.
Posted by Owen on June 12, 2008 at 1439 hrs
Who is going to be more of an expert about the location, amount, value, and future of oil than the oil companies? It’s what they do for a living.
Aren’t they also the most likely people to minimize or even deceive me about the potential environmental impact? C’mon, Owen. You gotta be kidding me. And “think tank”? The group cited in the US News article is “the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy.” I think that’s a notch above, say, the Center for American Progress. Don’t you think?
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1449 hrs
Aren’t they also the most likely people to minimize or even deceive me about the potential environmental impact?
Maybe, but not likely. Given the fact that many of these companies are paying millions of dollars in fines and lawsuits because of environmental issues, they have a vested interest in clean retrieval of energy. This is not the 1950’s.
The group cited in the US News article is “the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy.”
That’s fine, but that’s no reason to discount the oil companies information. Yes, it should be vetted and analyzed, but it’s not automatically invalid just because it came from an oil company.
Posted by Owen on June 12, 2008 at 1500 hrs
These are the same guys, Owen, who were handing out $10,000 checks to anyone who publicly sided with them about global warming.
But you know what? Fine. Let me say it this way: I want the oil company’s information “vetted and analyzed” by someone responsible to the public who has no financial vested interest in it. Put that way, we can agree and move on.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1521 hrs
I don’t think we can wait for some enterprising person to invest hundreds of millions into a nuclear power plant which won’t be online for a decade unless they have some kind of government help or guarantees or assurances or tax breaks. Something. I’d be surprised to learn that any coal plant was built without similar help. In either case, we can’t wait for it to happen. We need to kick start it. At the very least we need to modernize existing law and regulation to get out of the way of new nuclear power generation.
Why can’t the same thing be said about Oil in ANWR? Just like a Nuke Plant, it will cost millions, just like Nuke, it will take 10 years to get online. In either case, we can’t wait for it to happen. We need to kick start it. At the very least we need to modernize existing law and regulation to get out of the way of new oil drilling in the .01% area of the entire ANWR acreage.
Oh, and as you like to say, ANWR oil won’t do much for the price of oil. New nuclear plant will do about the same. So, why can’t we do both?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1529 hrs
Aren’t they also the most likely people to minimize or even deceive me about the potential environmental impact?
What’s been the deceit regarding Prudhoe Bay’s environmental impact, which is a few miles West of the 1002 area of ANWR? From what I’ve read, the Caribou are thriving, with a 3 fold growth in population since drilling started. There have been 0 reported species that have been killed off from drilling.
What a bullshit argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1533 hrs
Why can’t the same thing be said about Oil in ANWR?
Because a) it doesn’t really solve any of our problems and b) I’m not convinced on the environmental impact front.
What’s been the deceit regarding Prudhoe Bay’s environmental impact, which is a few miles West of the 1002 area of ANWR?
That’s a great question. Why don’t we consult some trustworthy experts. Maybe they can also tell us whether it is or isn’t a good model for ANWR.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1537 hrs
Because a) it doesn’t really solve any of our problems and b) I’m not convinced on the environmental impact front.
Again, the same can be said for nuclear. And since nuclear has 0 impact on transportation of goods and people, it just goes to show that it really doesn’t solve our problems.
Why don’t we consult some trustworthy experts.
Great, you do that and come back and tell us what you find out. Wait, there’s no need to, because there hasn’t been any impact environmentally, since Caribou are thriving, and no species have been lost.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1543 hrs
Again, the same can be said for nuclear.
No it can’t. It does solve some of our problems. First, it’s produced domestically. Second, it doesn’t emit greenhouse gas.
And since nuclear has 0 impact on transportation of goods and people
Did you know that some newer cars use electricity?
Wait, there’s no need to, because…
Because… you already know the answer! Nice!
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1548 hrs
It does solve some of our problems. First, it’s produced domestically.
So is ANWR oil.
Second, it doesn’t emit greenhouse gas.
No, but it does emit steam, and it does have a nasty, and STILL unsolved problem with waste.
Did you know that some newer cars use electricity?
How many? What’s the impact of nuclear on transportation? The burden is on you (who want to allow this development) to demonstrate that the impact is worth it, and then contrast it with drilling in ANWR.
Personally, I want both, why don’t you? It’s a win / win, and a great compromise with no risk. We’re going to consume oil, no matter what, so citing the impact of ANWR oil to “global warming” as a negative to not drill is a slight of hand and in my opinion a bunch of lies worse than what you’re damning others for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1603 hrs
Well, here’s how I’m personally scoring it.
PROBLEM ANWR NUCLEAR
___________________________________________________________
lower energy cost? slight reduction IDK
greenhouse gas? yes no
reduce foreign dependence? slight impact big impact
development impact? not convinced hell, europe does itAnd where I used the word “slight” I might have used the words “virtually no.” At least that’s how I’m reading it. And I’ve written hundreds of words now on why I see it that way. I think we’re starting to go in circles, here. Perhaps there’s little more to be covered.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1613 hrs
Well, here’s the problem… your scorecard is crap.
What about
Long Term Waste problem? NO HELLYES (I suggest you read up on breeder reactors if you think they’re the answer to this)
Health Risk? Slight HELLYES
Short term fix for Gas Prices? NO NOSo, to me, they’re about even, and both should be pursued. That’s quite a compromise, why don’t you agree? Again, we’re going to spit out the same amount of carbon from consuming oil, why do you care where it comes from? Why is it ok for you to continue to use it from foreign sources, but when ANWR is brought up, you drop down a NO? Rather hypocritical, in my opinion.
And I’ve written a number of sentences that there is no history of development impact from Prudhoe Bay, which is 60 miles West of the 1002 area. Prudhoe Bay has been touted as the safest, yes the SAFEST oil field in the world.
I disagree with your “Reduce foreign dependence”, unless you offer up something to educate me otherwise, I would put both equal if not ANWR as having more impact than Nuclear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1625 hrs
So, to me, they’re about even.
Yeah. And to you global warming is a hoax, so what the fuck do you know. Heh. Unlinking myself from the thread now. I’m repeating myself—and even I know that’s a hard thing for anyone to take.
Posted by scott on June 12, 2008 at 1628 hrs
Yeah. And to you global warming is a hoax, so what the fuck do you know. Heh. Unlinking myself from the thread now. I’m repeating myself—and even I know that’s a hard thing for anyone to take.
You’re only repeating yourself because you’ve run out of answers. Hey, I’ve got a question for you, how can you score nuclear as “big impact” to “reduce foreign dependence”, when only a tiny portion of oil is used to generate electricity? In 2002, only 2.45% of the electricity produced in the US was produced by using oil. So tell us all again, how increased nuclear power production will have a “big impact” on “reduce foreign dependence”.
Further more, I don’t believe global warming is a hoax. I simply disagree on mankind’s impact on it either way. So, the question is, What the Fuck Do You Know? Of course, you’re “unlinked” so you won’t respond to these valid questions, and so you’ll start all over next week in another similar topic. Grow up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1639 hrs
In 2002, only 2.45% of the electricity produced in the US was produced by using oil.
Oh, and I meant to let you know that this little fact came from the EIA, you know the group you touted as fair and impartial a few posts ago…. just don’t want you to have to “repeat yourself” again. I think your exact words were “an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 1642 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 06:52 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).