March 26, 2004
Is it too late for an energy policy?
Thirty odd years ago OPEC slapped us around and made the U.S.A. look like an impotent giant. Now, here we are in the 21st-century with gas approaching 2 dollars a gallon and for all practical purposes we have not addressed the issue.
As we look back in history, the list of failed civilizations is a long and winding road of clueless-ness. Over-farmed land, irrigation systems that failed, plagues, climatic change, geologic upheaval and strategic assets that could not be defended. The basic point is that all civilizations die and half the time it’s their own fault.
Our country has two safety valves that are supposed to save us--“democracy” and a “Laissez Faire” economy.
Democracy usually addresses a situation AFTER a horrific crisis has occurred. This works really great for war and social crisis. Its not that good at situations that slowly build up over decades, always getting progressively worse but never actually crossing over to the category of disaster. After the original OPEC thing, the giant shuttered but then went back to sleep. The slow increase in gas prices and the gradual shift to foreign oil supply just doesn’t seem to grab the attention of an electorate worried about jobs and terror. The amusing thing is that the job situation is related to a massive trade deficit partly fueled by oil imports, while the same imports financed the terror attacks.
The Laissez Faire economy could have solved the problem, but only if the suppliers are purely motivated by money. Thus far we can control them with the all-powerful dollar. But they know they have power over us, and while turning off the tap would adversely affect them, it will destroy us. Besides with the falling dollar and alternative markets (Europe and Asia) why sell to us. Like a junky hooked on heroin, what option do we have but to crawl back to Saudi Arabia and beg them for an oil fix?
Does this country still have what it takes to say, "Live free or Die"? Or are we so attached to our SUV's we will publicly humiliate ourselves before OPEC? I think our biggest problem isn't that the OPEC states will grow a new spine. The problem will be that as production capacity tops out and other country are willing to pay as much as us, why would they sell anything to us. After all the Europeans and the Asians have been preening and sucking up to the Arabs for decades, while we have been slapping them around. There is some vary serious talk of starting to price oil contract in Euro’s rather than dollars. This could be very very bad for us. If you think the price of gas is soaring now you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just check out the two-year graph of the Euro vs. the dollar:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EURUSD=X&t=2y
We tried the invasion thing in Iraq. It doesn’t seem to be going that well. We got a lot of dead soldiers but not much oil. Evidently any Iraqi with a bad attitude and a RPG can disrupt oil production. And they seem to take quite a bit of delight in disrupting our multibillion-dollar oil grab.
This seems to leave us in a deplorable situation. Forget the Artic wildlife refuge, there just isn’t enough oil in it to supply us with suntan lotion, let alone run the worlds largest consumer country.
The honest truth of the matter is there is no easy way out. Our cars have become as obese as we are, and our oil supply is in the hands of people who don’t really like us (the September 11 guys were Saudis). Thirty years ago we could have done something about this (coal gasification, natural gas conversation, nuclear power, electric vehicles). But because we didn’t we are going to have to kiss the monkey. The monkeys name is “yielding up national sovereignty” and he’s not very pretty. I wonder what it was like to be the last generation to live in the Roman Empire? Then again maybe I should be more concerned with being a first generation lapdog to the oil producing countries.
How does 5 dollar a gallon sound? What about 10?
Hummmmm.
Maybe its not to late to put that 5000-gallon storage tank in the back yard!
I just posted this on my blog, so its not a direct response to this thread, but I think it hits an important point that needs to be taken into account when we talk about if there REALLY is a danger that our gas prices are going to go up out of control like this article suggests:
“Record Gas Prices? No So
Gregg Easterbrook pointed this out a couple of weeks back on his blog, but I think its worth mentioning here. Gas prices have not increased one bit over the long run, if you adjust for inflation- the only thing that has increased is the media needs something to talk and people dont understand simple concepts like inflation… here are gas prices index for inflation over the last 50 years. Notice that today’s gas prices (add 2% to this chart for today’s price) are at lower levels than in 1950s and near the same level they have been at for the last 15 years.
And here is a direct quote from Easterbrook “Today’s gasoline is also substantially higher in quality, containing engine detergents and having had most of its pollutant content removed at the refinery—“reformulation” of gasoline to remove pollutants, begun on a national basis in 1991, being a leading reason that air pollution is declining. But even if you don’t care that gasoline today is substantially better in chemical quality than gasoline of the 1950s, it’s still much cheaper.”
But dont listen to reason and economic facts, let the media tell you that gas prices are at “record” highs…”
Also, most people who were estimating that the world would “run out of oil” have backed off those estimates now, and there is no serious projected date for that to happen. Most likely what will happen is that a cheaper and more efficient source of energy will be developed and we will never actually “run out” of oil (kind of reminds me of when those in the professional photography business were saying that the profession was doomed because the world was running out of silver and silver was needed to make photographs.. then came along digital photography…)
It’s not too late, but nuclear power is the only choice we are going to have in the next 50 years. The primary drivers behind a conversion to nuclear power will be a vastly improve infrastructure and a major increase in capacity when it comes to storage. Your standard electric car will need to be able to run 500 miles, with a family of five and be able to be charged in less than ten minutes. Impossible for today’s chemical based systems, but not for other systems which store charges directly.
Posted by: Brian at March 26, 2004 07:32 PMI have seen the inflation-indexed graph. Here is another one:
http://perryx2.com/oilprice.html
Also does it take into account the percent of household income required to fill the gas tank? Namely are we spending the same amount of or paycheck on our transportation?
However the graph doesn’t invalidate my main suppositions. If the planet were completely full of oil it would it still would eventually run dry. Also regardless of whether the WORLD is running out of oil, we already have. If your enemies have what you need to survive then life can get unpleasant.
Here are a couple of more graphs
http://www.fintrend.com/ftf/images/charts/Inflation_Oil.gif
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Posted by: Bob J Young at March 26, 2004 08:19 PMI am also certain we spend less compared to our overall income. Household income (I believe) has doubled since 1950, and has been going up based on every indictator through this century. The numbers that say household income has not increased in the last 25 years are also misleading because they do not take into account that households now have fewer people. The average middle-class household has seen a 50% increase in their income in real dollar values in the last 25 years(see http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040111.shtml)
It may be that we now own more cars, so maybe we do not spend less, but it seems like we are getting richer and richer while our gas prices are either staying the same or declining… i dont think this is cause for worry.
I do agree that our dependance on middle east oil is troubling, but I do believe that the ultimate solution for this will come from the free market developing some better, cheaper and more accesible method of powering cars that is practicable. It wont happen because some company has a social conscious, it will happen because some greedy company wants to make a bunch of money by creating the product that will replace oil… and we will all better off for it.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at March 26, 2004 08:23 PMMisha—
Statistics are meaningless when you have to commute 40 miles one way to work everyday and the cost of gas is seriously eating into your budget, causing a ripple effect not only in your bank account, but throughout the entire economy. Knowing that gas cost the equivalent of $1.80 in 1981 in 2004 dollars is cold comfort to a family on a tight purse string; that covers all my family and friends. Not every issue is one to be debated inside the confines of the free-market.
The bottom line is this: we as a nation have to come to the realization that our domestic production of oil and natural gas is declining on a yearly basis; it will not be too long before we are importing ALL of our oil, and then what do we do if radical Islam spreads and the countries that supply us with oil to drive our gas guzzling SUV’s to the local Safeway decide to cut us off? Or the countries acting in concert decide not to sell to U.S. oil companies anymore? What kind of affect would that have on the economy? What it boils down to is self-preservation on several different and important levels.
We (the U.S. government) needs to put together a coherent, far reaching, visionary energy policy for this country, that will take us down the road to energy independence in the near term. Nuclear energy to me makes the most sense in the short run; hydrogen in the long run after an infrastructure of its efficient and cost effective delivery systems are put into place. The government should set new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that call for all automobiles to get at least an average of 40 miles to the gallon by the year 2010, bar none. The Energy Star program should become compulsory for all large electrical and electronics equipment sold in the U.S. by 2010. Alternative forms of energy (wind, solar, fuel cell) should be funded and special tax incentives given to businesses and homeowners who use them. The steps that should be taken are many and varied…
This is the one area where the free-market has to take a back seat to national survival; and make no mistake this is a matter of national survival.
Misha:
Your faith in humanity is commendable, but I was alive during the last oil crisis. I heard the speeches. I watched the scientific and political initiatives get started. Then I watched them all fade away. An SUV today gets the same mileage as my dad’s car did in the seventies. We have gone to war twice over oil in my lifetime. You are going to have a hard time convincing me its all just going to work out.
Hey Misha,
I do agree that our dependance on middle east oil is troubling, but I do believe that the ultimate solution for this will come from the free market developing some better, cheaper and more accesible method of powering cars that is practicable.
We give more than $20 billion every year to people who are trying to kill us. This has gone beyond ‘the market’. It’s a strategic imperative that we eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
I just posted an article about it and summarized Kerry’s plan to bring about total energy independence here on WatchBlog.
> Now, here we are in the 21-century with gas
> approaching 2 dollars a gallon …
Oh, boo hoo, gas costs 2 dollars a gallon!
It’s sick that we use the price of oil and gas as the starting point, driving (no pun intended) so many other government policies: national defense, the environment, public transportation, energy research, zoning laws. Even the war on terrorism has to pussyfoot around the holy price of gas.
It should be the other way around - the price of fuel should be a secondary side effect of our good polices in other areas. If gas costs $2, $5, or even $10 a gallon because of smart foreign policies, transportation strategies, environmental protections, and forward-thinking energy solutions, then so be it.
Instead, we begin with the price of a tank of gas and work our way out from there. How stupid is that?
-Cf
> the ultimate solution for this will come from
> the free market developing some better, cheaper
> and more accesible method of powering cars that
> is practicable.
This would be a whole lot more likely if there was, in fact, a free market in the energy and transportation industries. But there is not.
In fact, the energy and transportation industries are artificially maintained in two significant ways:
ECONOMIC: The airline industry is constantly on the verge of collapse, and the only thing saving it is low fuel prices. Our infrastructure of roads and highways receives massive public funding, a de facto subsidy to the auto and gas industries (shouldn’t a true libertarian/capitalist argue that roads should be privately built and operated?). Almost complete deregulation of the trucking industry has led to the collapse of the (substantially more fuel efficient) rail system of transporting goods. Transportation policies consistently favor airplanes, cars, and trucks over trains and commuter railways. Cars are permitted to be fuel-inefficient
(Some of my examples are out-and-out anti-free-market proactive subsidies, but I am also citing examples of the government going out of its way to avoid common-sense policies such as requiring fuel-efficiency standards and funding public transportation systems)
GEOPOLITICAL & MILITARY: We would not be able to afford our SUVs and cheap airfares if not for our massive (and ridiculously expensive) military presence throughout the world, in particular in the middle east. We have maintained chummy relationships with questionable foreign governments in order to keep their oil flowing to us. We have invaded countries under false pretenses and invited the condemnation and enmity of the world (requiring even more expenditure for protection), all in the name of maintaining our system of cheap fuel prices.
It may be too late, however, to change these policies.
If not for these protections and questionable policies, a plane ticket from New York to LA might likely cost a few thousand dollars. A gallon of gas might cost $15.
Because of the artificially low costs of fuel (and as a result of that, the artificially low cost of travel and shipping), the people of the United States now live in a country where travel is indeed essential. Many of us have to drive an hour or more to work. We live hundreds or even thousands of miles from our loved ones. We even often live several miles from the local grocery store. Many of us have to use our cars just to go to the mailbox or to take out the trash! Our railroad system, both for humans and for goods, is almost completely dismantled, to the point that most US cities don’t even have functioning train stations any more.
Weaning ourselves away from being a “nation on the move” may not be possible, but insisting that the free market will generate a new system of energy resources is highly wishful thinking.
Those who advocate nuclear power may already suspect this: they realize that we already have a silver bullet solution, and that when the shit hits the fan with our dependence on oil, we can always turn to nukes, even if (as is most likely) we haven’t made any useful progress towards hydro, wind, tidal, geo, or solar power sources.
IMHO, the best alternative is a slow & steady process of allowing oil prices to increase to their natural levels, both through the repeal of pro-airline, pro-auto, and pro-oil industry subsidies and through a change in our foreign policies to not be so friendly with Saudi Arabia, etc. We should allow airline, auto, and oil businesses to compete - and fail - in a truly free market, never unquestioningly bailing them out. We should require cars and trucks to be more fuel efficient, and we should fund public transportation systems. We should re-regulate trucking and help get our railways back on their feet. We shouldn’t encourage the building of new communities in far-flung locations by building highways for them (if you want to live 150 miles from your job, I shouldn’t have to pay for your highway).
I attribute our energy situation almost entirely to American laziness and greed. Almost all of our energy problems would be solved if we only had the humility, modesty, and social consciousness to ride trains every so often, to drive fuel-efficient cars, to live in communities where the homes, stores, schools etc aren’t so spread out that cars are required just to visit your neighbor.
-Cf
I think Bush has an energy policy and it is working perfectly. Since he took office the price of gas has been on a steady rise. This increase has more than wiped out any small savings the average American saw from the Bush tax cuts. You can quote statistics about the price of gas now and in 1950 along with infaltion formulas that can show how we may be paying less for gas now than we have done in the past but that is all relative. The fact is that Bush policies have steadily pushed up the price of gas and there is no end in site. Bush’s priorities have always been with the oil companies and we are seeing the results. Does anyone really wonder why Cheney does not want to release the names of his energy task force? One trip to the gas station should clear that mystery up.
Posted by: William Flynn at March 27, 2004 04:56 PMThe reason the stone age ended was not because they ran out of stones.
I own a 2003 SUV and 1997 Camry. Guess which one is more efficient?
And even if the SUV was less efficient, isn’t the price I pay for that the increased gas taxes because I use more gas?
Or what if I own an SUV but drive it far less than average?
The fact is that just about everything is cheaper - more abundant - now than at any time in the past. Generally, we live longer, healthier, happier lives. Of course this does not fit with the worldview of the left who religiously believe the earth is doomed and humans are responsible.
We should go nuclear because it is cheap, abundant, and safe. How many people have died due to Nuclear accidents in the US? How many die each year in refinery related accidents?
We should also not artificially inflate the price of energy by locking it away in federally owned lands.
A lot of interesting comments and talking point have been posted. However, I think I’ll throw another log on the fire.
Nuclear is the only way to go for our energy future. Yes! I am in favor of alternate energy, but no solar/wind/ocean powered system could supply New York city with sufficient energy. When you work the numbers there just isn’t enough wind, sun and waves to make it work. There is a reason cities are climatic “heat islands”, they use a lot of energy. Only nuclear power combined with nuclear fuel reprocessing (reprocessing lets you use the same fuel over and over again) can supply the future power requirements of this country (and nuclear doesn’t make green house gasses). Yes it is dangerous. But so is freezing to death in the wintertime after the Arabs cut off the oil. Its obvious that nobody in this country is interested in efficiency or reducing consumption so we might as well die by our own hand rather than submit to a foreign power.
Just as a caveat: I am a physicist working for in the nuclear industry. I am not happy with nuclear powers safety record; I just don’t see a viable alternative.
Todd:
Do you know why the Stone Age ended? Not all stone were usable as tools. Obsidian and flint were the two best. But they were relatively rare. So extensive trading networks developed and possession of a deposit was a strategic asset. I have lived all over the east coast and never came across a deposit of either. Also like any other resource a deposit can run out. Of course the really big problem was that as tools stones really suck. Every time you throw a spear or shoot an arrow the point would break. After millennium of missing the rabbit and cursing the gods about the broken arrow point, dumb luck showed man how to make metal. So lets all pray to the gods for another streak of dumb luck.
Maybe, just maybe, the French aren’t so bad:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm
I’m buying one ASAP! Eh … or moving to France — whichever is the more patriotic thing to do.
Posted by: Will at March 28, 2004 12:31 PMWill:
I read an article about the air car several years ago. I was wondering what happened to it. The home page for the manufacture is http://www.theaircar.com/car.html.
It seems like a viable technology. The performance specs are similar to a battery powered electric cars without the expense of replacing the battery every year or so. I hope it works out. Obviously you will still need a power source to compress the air.
Some previous vehicles that were supposed to challenge the dominance of the gas engine are: The flywheel powered car, the turbine powered car, the wood gas powered car, the wind powered car and the vegetable oil powered car. The vegetable oil and wood gas cars are actual vehicle. Just look them up on the web.
Todd, I know you mean well, and I hate to be rude about this: But your excuses for owning an SUV sound like rationalizations. If everyone just drove a reasonably fuel-efficient car we wouldn’t need any foreign oil at all, much less need to “go nuclear”.
I am not an opponent of nuclear energy, but I am not a fan of it either (yes it has a safe track record, but that’s pre-9/11). I am on the fence about it, but I think we should keep a certain small percentage of our power nuclear-based just so we keep the science and technology fresh and sharp. I would, however, hate to see us just give up on developing safer energy sources and go nuclear just so we can drive our decadent SUVs. Is it so hard to squeeze our fat American asses into smaller cars?
It’s so sad to realize the ripple effects of American decadence - for example, there would certainly be no Iraq war if we were independent of foreign oil. And it makes you think about 9/11, too. I remember walking through a cloud of World Trade Center dust during the days after 9/11 and seeing SUVs driving by with American flags on their antennas… and I remember feeling a bitter sting in my belly. Is that why it happened? I know it’s wrong to blame ourselves instead of the real murderers, but such thoughts are part of the process of understanding the scope of the problem.
I am also an American (and I’m pretty decadent) so I share the responsibility for the implications of our lifestyle. But I can’t bring myself to make excuses about it.
Americans, please, lets try to lose the SUVs. I’m not asking us to give up on cars or to go vegan or to give up air conditioning or beer or cable TV. But the SUVs, jeez, do we really need them?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 29, 2004 12:37 PMCF, I make no excuses for owning an SUV. I do not have to. There is nothing to excuse. As to you being rude, never fear, you hold no power to offend me. I merely pointed out that two of the (spurious) reasons generally given by anti-choice forces is that SUVs have more emissions and get less gas mileage. My comments were meant to refute them.
The US, for all the problems it has, is the most free country in the world. This freedom has led to prospertiy. People, apparently like you CF, feel guilty about this wealth. If someone is poor, and I mean really poor not like the run of the mill poor person in the US, it is likley that somewhere near is a tyrant that does not value the rule of law, fair play, tolerance, personal autonomy, individuality, and freedom. So, it’s unfortunate that when you saw the dust of the towers you thought about American decadence instead of a group of people and their 13th century views of the world. People who do not value freedom, or tolerance, or the rule of law. This struggle is not against Islam. Islam is no more responsible than Catholicism was for the Inquisition. This is about people. This is a clash of cultures. Which side are you on?
“Islam is no more responsible than Catholicism was for the Inquisition.”
The Catholic Church wasn’t responsible for the in inquisition? I thing you might want to consider checking your reference material. The historically record would disagree with you. Visit your local catholic priest if you have any question on the subject.
You might want to also consider that the idyllic totally free society you describe doesn’t exist. Since a totally free society would have no law or social norms. Sodomy, theft, extortion, slavery and pollution would all be legal. If everybody always did what was right we wouldn’t have a legal system or jails. Is it really that big a leap to stopping people from making the country dependant on the oil whims of a foreign power (and their 13th century views of the world).
Todd, you may indeed have the “right” to own an SUV, but you have to realize the price that you are currently paying for that right: Our enormous dependence on foreign oil.
Along with that dependence comes massive taxes we pay to support our military presence in the Middle East in order to protect, maintain, and/or control the aforementioned 13th century cultures, increasingly full of people who want to kill us.
The price we pay for our SUVs is that our nation is locked in a deadly petroleum-based embrace with “people who do not value freedom, or tolerance, or the rule of law.”
All I’m saying is that it may not be worth that price.
We have two choices:
1) We can massively decrease our dependence on foreign oil (which could be done nearly overnight if Americans developed a taste for smaller cars).
2) We should hunker down for decades of bloody tensions with the emerging Muslim world, decades in which we have no choice but to increasily subjugate, manipulate, or even sometimes make dirty deals with these emerging powers. Make no mistake, the Muslim world is on the rise and is growing in economic and military power. If we want to keep our oil flowing in order to maintain our right to get fat and drive alone in three ton trucks, then we’re simply going to have to either keep sleeping with these regimes or keep beating them into submission in bloody combat.
If option #2 sounds reasonable to you, then God help us. Big picture question: Would you rather have an SUV or decades of conflict with the Arab world? The choice, I’m afraid, is pretty much that simple.
-Cf
The problem with most religions is not the doctrine, it is the people. There is usually no directive to torture a specific group. Problems arise when the people apply the dogma. A few hundred years ago the Spanish church went crazy. Today it is a group of jihadists. In either case, it is is not the religion that is responsible, it is the people.
If you invent a better product, I will buy it. So get to inventing instead of lamenting the state of the world.
Posted by: Todd at March 30, 2004 06:23 PMWell Todd, my solution is nuclear power and electric vehicles. And since I am a scientist working for the federal government (in the nuclear industry) I guess you could say I am part of the solution. If you are interested in electric vehicle go to http://eaaev.org. Current battery technology isn’t sufficient to get me to work and back but I have high hopes for the new generation of lithium batteries.
The question everyone needs to ask himself or herself is what can they do to solve the problem. Rather than just wait for others to rescue them from their destructive behavior.
If you invent a better product, I will buy it. So get to inventing instead of lamenting the state of the world.
Lexus and Mercedes are coming out with hybrid SUVs this year. Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge will have their hybrid SUVs ready over the next few years. Just about the time I’ll be thinking of trading in my current SUV.
In the mean time, we can vote for Kerry. The only candidate that acknowledges that dependence on foreign oil is a problem and has a plan to fix it.
Lee, I’ll bet those new hybrid SUVs still have crappy fuel efficiency compared to a normal car, especially if you take into account the oil burned to generate the electricity for the vehicle.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 31, 2004 11:13 AMCF: You might want to review how a hybrid vehicle works. For the Honda I test drove the main source of power was a gas engine. The electric motor was just there to provide additional torque for acceleration. This allowed a smaller engine to be used. The batteries were recharged when the car reached cruising speed and by capturing energy during the braking process. The hybrid system is very effective and has been around since the 70’s. I believe the process was first described in “Mother Earth News”.
Posted by: Bob J Young at March 31, 2004 01:53 PMThanks, Bob, I didn’t know that.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 31, 2004 04:32 PMHey Cf,
You’re probably right about the gas mileage, but I need the room in back. If it gets better than 15 mpg, then I figure I’m doing better than I was.
I can’t quit cold turkey, and most people are like that. I’ll do what I can until Kerry’s energy plan makes us independent of Middle Eastern oil.
Well, there you go again with that irrational exuberance Lee. Even if you make that HUGE leap of faith and assume Kerry will win you are ignoring the reality of life in Washington.
A) He is politician. Which means that promises made during a campaign are void after taking the oath of office.
B) The republican will most likely still control congress. Which mean Kerry couldn’t pass wind, let alone an energy policy.
C) His plan is technically feasible.
I think we need to adjust that rose-colored Democrat tint to a more neutral color. How about putting a nice Libertarian orange or an aqua Green tint on those sunglasses?
Hey Bob,
He is politician. Which means that promises made during a campaign are void after taking the oath of office.
If the American people want it to happen, then letter writing campaigns, petitions, and local and state level action can make sure Kerry stays focused on it.
Bush isn’t even acknowledging that dependence on foreign oil is a serious economic and security problem. I believe it is, so I don’t have much of a choice but to make sure Kerry follows through on his plan, right?
The republican will most likely still control congress. Which mean Kerry couldn’t pass wind, let alone an energy policy.
The Republicans control Congress and the presidency right now and they can’t pass an energy policy. :)
The Republicans controlled Congress when Clinton was president, and he used compromise and vetoes to good effect in eliminating the budget deficit and keeping down government growth. Two areas where the Republicans, without strong leadership by the current president, are obviously irresponsible. So I think Kerry wouldn’t have any more difficulty than Clinton did in cracking the whip.
His plan is technically feasible.
Judging by the tone of the rest of your argument, I believe you meant “unfeasible”. And no. It’s not unfeasible. It’s in it’s infancy.
It’s a BIG idea and the Democrats expect resistance from the same type of people who said Kennedy couldn’t put a man on the moon in 10 years, and who said an atom bomb was not technologically feasible.
The glasses aren’t rose-colored. Mr. Kerry and I have 20/20 vision. :)
Well ok! I admit it! My glass is half empty, not half full. Everyone’s worldview is colored by his or her life experiences and my experience with technology and the federal government says Kerry’s plan won’t fly. If we weren’t a partisan 50/50 nation, or if the public in general cared about this subject or if the technical hurdles weren’t so large the plan might have a smidge of a chance.
However my totally unscientific survey of my coworker shows that no one gives a darn. Half don’t believe there is a problem the other have think Jesus will fix everything. Unlike the Apollo program were every schoolboy and girl were terrified about the soviets gaining the high ground with sputnik or the A-bomb programs genesis over the fear of the Nazi menace .
Can you see campaigning against the Arab Oil menace? He’s to PC for that.
Haha! Unfortunately your right, but I’m going to try to proselytize anyhow. It’s an important issue, even if Bush is going to ignore it and Kerry won’t put it in terms that make Americans ashamed to fill up the tank.
“They can kill ya, but they can’t eat ya. That’s against the law!” :)
It’s quite simple. Fossil fuels are a limited resource, and as the pool of this resource continues to diminish, the price of the refined product will continue to climb. There is no GOOD policy that any government can make which will provide that resource “cheaply” to the consumer, and from an environmental perspective, such a policy should never emerge either.
Gasoline should be expensive, and become increasingly so until a point is arrived at which more renewable power sources for cars become relatively affordable, and more mass transit infrastructure gets put in place. A shift to ethanol would feature the same conveniences currently enjoyed by gasoline users (quick refill as opposed to a slow recharge); and the usage of agricultural production for energy would make farming a more viable industry once again. Best of all, it would enable the U.S. to forge policies independant of what oil magnates, foreign and domestic, try to tell us to do.
Ciggy, that’s the type of simplistic approach that, when implemented, makes idealogues like Lenin, Marx, supply-siders, and democracy domino theorists scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong when it’s applied to the real world.
The US government already subsidizes imported oil. If the subsidies were removed, it would be about $4/gal. right now. But the subsidies will never be removed because Americans would complain and elect someone who promises to keep gas prices low. You can see it happening now.
I guarantee that, as supplies diminish, the United States will make securing oil more and more of a priority. In fact the energy plan that Cheney presented in 2001 says,
The NEPD Group recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.
Cheney’s group recommends US investment in the Middle Eeast, Africa, SE Asia, the Caspian Sea area, and everywhere else you can find oil. What do you think the United States government will do when those countries try to freeze out US companies as supplies dwindle?
There is no GOOD policy that any government can make which will provide that resource “cheaply” to the consumer, and from an environmental perspective, such a policy should never emerge either.
That’s right. It’s time to wean ourselves from foreign oil. Only Kerry’s plan will make that happen.
Lee, just because an idea is “simple” doesn’t make it a bad one. Are you familiar with the principles of supply and demand? And are you suggesting that just because oil people like Cheney will advocate a certain policy, that makes it the right thing to do? I didn’t think you were on that side of the fence, but perhaps you will pull a Kerry and vote for it before you vote against it.
The problem you cite of countries freezing the U.S. out of oil supplies, is precisely why continued dependance on oil makes even less foreign policy sense than it does economic or enviornmental sense.
Posted by: Ciggy at April 6, 2004 03:50 PM
