Good article.

 

Why?  It was almost 100% fluff.  Get real, we have a problem, all the political rhetoric (except for our own) is counterproductive, etc.  The <a href="http://www.getreallist.com/letter-to-congress-we-need-a-real-energy-plan.html">letter to Congress</a> linked in the last sentence of that article had more substantive proposals in it, I'll admit that, including some that I'd actually support notwithstanding my continued skepticism of the peak oil doomsayers.  (Most, of course, I adamantly oppose as needless and economically devastating overreactions to an overhyped threat that wouldn't necessary even if the threat were as bad as advertised.  The anti-globalization screed is particularly jejune.)

 

Also, the callous writing off of more palatable and less economically self-destructive alternatives, such as hydrocarbons from cellulose and algae, as "still puny, and a long way from being ready to scale up and replace oil" is disingenuous when the action plan the speaker himself calls for would require trillions over decades.  With trillions over decades, algae-based and cellulosic biofuels would also see marked improvements in efficiency and scale, too, and could result in a sustainable supply of synthetic hydrocarbons that would not require the infringements upon economic liberty and the rollback of the economic gains from globalization that the Western world has enjoyed for the past generation proposed in that letter.

Press Conference going on right now with the President actually admitting that easily accessible oil is on the decline, and that we can "see the general direction that the oil industry is headed in"...  WOW.  I never thought that I would hear the government actually admit this...

^That's great news.  It's crucial that the government understand that oil won't last forever.  I think they always have though based on the amount of strategic oil reserves we have in the US.  That may have more to do with the amount of oil we import than the diminishing global supply.

I wished I'd heard that. I muted it when I grew frustrated with Obama's lack of answers.

He also directly called out republicans by saying that's why we can't just say "drill baby drill", that we must have a comprehensive energy policy and fund alternatives.  He mentioned investments in wind, solar and bio-diesel fuels. 

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad that we've heard the President acknowledge in a national press conference that our way of life is changing.  I doubt that the national news media will even follow up on this, however.

I was pleased the media did cover it.

 

I had CNBC on today as I usually do (or Bloomberg) while working. There was an interesting discussion that if the Gulf Oil Spill happened in the summer of 2008 along with this crap going on in Israel, that oil might have hit $200 per barrel.

 

But if Israel takes a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuke plant and Iran retalliates by closing the Strait of Hormuz, we might see $200 anyway as 40% of the world's oil supply is shipped through this strait. Between that and the Gulf Oil Spill, is there any more reason why the U.S. shouldn't undertake a crash program to eliminate our dependency on oil?

 

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8903101709

Because such a crash program would be expensive, inefficient, unrealistic, and subject to all of the drawbacks of having the central government pick winners and losers based on politics more than science and/or economics?

 

Because the renewable-energy subsidies in Europe have proven not even remotely cost-effective and are being abandoned by even those who were once their most vocal champions in the face of the sobering force of budget and debt pressures?

 

Because America's research universities and private enterprises are already working on the problem, with promising results, and there's no point in changing a winning game?

What would this "crash" program involve?  Would we switch all of our cars to natural gas or bio-diesel?  Let the market work to determine the best solution once oil hits $200 a barrel instead of having the government mandate another fuel source monopoly for personal travel.  This is the kind of thing that the market is very good at dealing with because consumers and manufacturers alike are typically very quick to respond to these types of things. 

Because such a crash program would be expensive, inefficient, unrealistic, and subject to all of the drawbacks of having the central government pick winners and losers based on politics more than science and/or economics?

 

Good thing the guvmint isn't already doing that with massive oil industry subsidies. Oh wait, yes they are.

 

Because the renewable-energy subsidies in Europe have proven not even remotely cost-effective and are being abandoned by even those who were once their most vocal champions in the face of the sobering force of budget and debt pressures?

 

And what a horrible quality of life they have in Europe! Oh wait, they outlive us and out-educate us and keep their wealth at home more.

 

Because America's research universities and private enterprises are already working on the problem, with promising results, and there's no point in changing a winning game?

 

And where to universities and private enterprises get a substantial portion of their research funding? Oh wait, the guvmint!

 

This seems to be a recurring theme among faux fiscal conservatives who don't see the government subsidies to sustain the status quo, much like fish probably don't notice the water. You don't seem to realize how much the government is already involved in our lives. So why not shift that involvement from one paradigm (oil) to another (renewables)?

What would this "crash" program involve? Would we switch all of our cars to natural gas or bio-diesel? Let the market work to determine the best solution once oil hits $200 a barrel instead of having the government mandate another fuel source monopoly for personal travel. This is the kind of thing that the market is very good at dealing with because consumers and manufacturers alike are typically very quick to respond to these types of things.

 

Government can and already is affecting the market, however.  Subsidies and tax credits keep oil prices artificially low, and the taxes on gas are fixed rather than a percentage and so have minimal if any impact on consumption as prices rise or fall.  Phase out the subsidies, change the fuel tax to a percentage (currently $.17/gallon, so let's make it 17%).  That's a start. 

 

The problem with waiting for the market is that the market doesn't always act quickly enough.  Higher prices may make more fuel-efficient cars more desirable, but it takes years to design and build the necessary capacity.  So by requiring higher fuel economy the government pushes car companies to do some of that design-build process now, rather than waiting for the higher prices that are certain to come in the future. 

 

Capitalism doesn't solve all problems.  See BP. 

Because such a crash program would be expensive, inefficient, unrealistic, and subject to all of the drawbacks of having the central government pick winners and losers based on politics more than science and/or economics?

 

Good thing the guvmint isn't already doing that with massive oil industry subsidies. Oh wait, yes they are.

 

I oppose those.

 

Because the renewable-energy subsidies in Europe have proven not even remotely cost-effective and are being abandoned by even those who were once their most vocal champions in the face of the sobering force of budget and debt pressures?

 

And what a horrible quality of life they have in Europe! Oh wait, they outlive us and out-educate us and keep their wealth at home more.

 

You really haven't been following what's been going on in Europe, or you simply have a very rose-tinted view of what's been happening over there.

 

Because America's research universities and private enterprises are already working on the problem, with promising results, and there's no point in changing a winning game?

 

And where to universities and private enterprises get a substantial portion of their research funding? Oh wait, the guvmint!

 

That's more OK with me than most public expenditures, though of course I start out suspicious by default.  However, I perceived that you were advocating for a great deal more than the continuation of the status quo.

 

This seems to be a recurring theme among faux fiscal conservatives who don't see the government subsidies to sustain the status quo, much like fish probably don't notice the water. You don't seem to realize how much the government is already involved in our lives. So why not shift that involvement from one paradigm (oil) to another (renewables)?

 

Over time, I believe we will, or at least that we'll shift away from oil.  But some "crash program," which would involve an immediate and politically-driven outlay of too much money while the technology is still immature, would be fruitless at this point.  I'm not pushing some agenda of oil today, oil tomorrow, oil forever.  In fact, I'm very optimistic about a future without fossil fuels, and I believe I've posted a great deal of links earlier on this thread backing up that optimism.  I just don't think that the pace can be effectively forced by government money, which would involve picking winners and losers based on political connections rather than technological and economic merit, before the market has a chance to sort out the best options.

What would this "crash" program involve?  Would we switch all of our cars to natural gas or bio-diesel?  Let the market work to determine the best solution once oil hits $200 a barrel instead of having the government mandate another fuel source monopoly for personal travel.  This is the kind of thing that the market is very good at dealing with because consumers and manufacturers alike are typically very quick to respond to these types of things. 

 

Government can and already is affecting the market, however.  Subsidies and tax credits keep oil prices artificially low, and the taxes on gas are fixed rather than a percentage and so have minimal if any impact on consumption as prices rise or fall.  Phase out the subsidies, change the fuel tax to a percentage (currently $.17/gallon, so let's make it 17%).  That's a start.

 

I have a better idea: Get rid of the fuel tax entirely.  Consumption taxes are regressive and their incidence therefore falls the most on those who can afford them the least.  If you want to increase the price of fuel, just end the subsidies to the oil industry.

 

The problem with waiting for the market is that the market doesn't always act quickly enough.

 

On balance, and in practice, it acts faster than the government.  In recent years--Katrina, Deepwater Horizon, etc.--the government hasn't been all that quick to respond even in moments of crisis, let alone with respect to issues with longer time horizons and less media and grassroots pressure.

 

Higher prices may make more fuel-efficient cars more desirable, but it takes years to design and build the necessary capacity.  So by requiring higher fuel economy the government pushes car companies to do some of that design-build process now, rather than waiting for the higher prices that are certain to come in the future.

 

Which, in turn, increases the costs to those already-struggling car companies, forcing them to rush to build expensive and lower-quality (because rushed development is seldom good development) vehicles that consumers aren't ready to buy yet--requiring the government to step in to subsidize the purchases of the vehicles it forced the car companies to design before the time was right.  The higher prices that will come in the future will be the market's way of signaling when the time to shift paradigms has actually come, because the market will actually support it.

What would this "crash" program involve?  Would we switch all of our cars to natural gas or bio-diesel?  Let the market work to determine the best solution once oil hits $200 a barrel instead of having the government mandate another fuel source monopoly for personal travel.  This is the kind of thing that the market is very good at dealing with because consumers and manufacturers alike are typically very quick to respond to these types of things. 

 

Government can and already is affecting the market, however.  Subsidies and tax credits keep oil prices artificially low, and the taxes on gas are fixed rather than a percentage and so have minimal if any impact on consumption as prices rise or fall.  Phase out the subsidies, change the fuel tax to a percentage (currently $.17/gallon, so let's make it 17%).  That's a start. 

 

The problem with waiting for the market is that the market doesn't always act quickly enough.  Higher prices may make more fuel-efficient cars more desirable, but it takes years to design and build the necessary capacity.  So by requiring higher fuel economy the government pushes car companies to do some of that design-build process now, rather than waiting for the higher prices that are certain to come in the future. 

 

Capitalism doesn't solve all problems.  See BP. 

 

You're right that there's a balance... I'm not denying that.  I am rejecting KJP's notion that we need a "crash" program to end our dependency on foreign oil.  We need and have programs that mitigate the impact of an oil supply crunch (fuel economy standards, subsidies for alternative energy, taxes on fuel, etc...).

 

I look at government spending on these kinds of things as insurance against possible oil supply shortages in the future.  I'm in no way suggesting that the government should stay out of the oil business, but I don't think they should take it over or mandate a move away from it entirely either.  It's all about balance.  I would be for ending oil subsidies to simply open up the transportation fuel market.  Make it competitive and figure out what the best fuel for the future is.  I'd also like to see a more diversified transportation fuel market to give people more options (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, electric, compressed air, bio-diesel, hydrogen, whatever). 

 

Balance and competition not mandates and restrictions.

You really haven't been following what's been going on in Europe, or you simply have a very rose-tinted view of what's been happening over there.

 

I'm aware. I've been to Europe many times, both east and west of the old iron curtain. They are driven more by simple pleasures and less by materialistic interests. The older I get, the more I like that laid-back appropach. And their sense of time is much more healthy -- if something goes wrong, no problem. They seem to ask: In 500 years what difference will it really make? Perhaps a downturn will breed more poets and painters. Either way, Europe will still be here.

You really haven't been following what's been going on in Europe, or you simply have a very rose-tinted view of what's been happening over there.

 

I'm aware. I've been to Europe many times, both east and west of the old iron curtain. They are driven more by simple pleasures and less by materialistic interests. The older I get, the more I like that laid-back appropach. And their sense of time is much more healthy -- if something goes wrong, no problem. They seem to ask: In 500 years what difference will it really make? Perhaps a downturn will breed more poets and painters. Either way, Europe will still be here.

 

Then we have very, very deep philosophical differences about what the good life entails.

 

In addition, I don't think what you're saying is even an accurate representation of Europe.  At least, that has not been my experience, though I've probably traveled less than you.

You really haven't been following what's been going on in Europe, or you simply have a very rose-tinted view of what's been happening over there.

 

I'm aware. I've been to Europe many times, both east and west of the old iron curtain. They are driven more by simple pleasures and less by materialistic interests. The older I get, the more I like that laid-back appropach. And their sense of time is much more healthy -- if something goes wrong, no problem. They seem to ask: In 500 years what difference will it really make? Perhaps a downturn will breed more poets and painters. Either way, Europe will still be here.

 

Within 500 years the oil from Deepwater Horizon will have stopped gushing; in fact we may have run out of oil by that point.  So what difference does it really make?  The Earth, Europe, North America will likely still be here (I do hold out in case a meteorite, aliens, or other wacky disaster comes along).

 

"over a long enough period of time, the life expectancy for everything is zero" - Fight Club 

Obama: End dependence on fossil fuels

 

  By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Writer Julie Pace, Associated Press Writer  – 31 mins ago

 

PITTSBURGH – Seizing on a disastrous oil spill to advance a cause, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil and pass a clean-energy bill that he says would help the nation end its dependence on fossil fuels.

 

Obama predicted that he would find the political support for legislation that would dramatically alter the way Americans fuel their homes and cars, including placing a price on carbon pollution, even though such legislation is politically divisive and remains bogged in the Senate.

 

"The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months," Obama told an audience at Carnegie Mellon University. "I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can, and I will work with anyone to get this done. And we will get it done."

 

More at:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100602/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama

 

  "Over time, I believe we will, or at least that we'll shift away from oil."

 

  As if we have a choice?

 

  If projections hold, in 2035 we will have half the oil available to us today on a global scale. In 2070, about 10%.

 

"Over time, I believe we will, or at least that we'll shift away from oil."

 

  As if we have a choice?

 

  If projections hold, in 2035 we will have half the oil available to us today on a global scale. In 2070, about 10%.

 

I'm sure that those predictions are qualitatively accurate even if they're not numerically exact.  So yes, it will not be because we have a choice.  So what?  That is not an argument for forcing the unpleasant consequences of that lack-of-choice in the future onto our citizens now by choice.  That's like saying that the fact that our elderly will die before age 120 means we should kill them when they reach 80.  There is no reason to accelerate the timetable.

Then we have very, very deep philosophical differences about what the good life entails.

 

 

You're just realizing this?!?!

 

This is what makes me feel at home:

 

 

 

  KJP, is there a reason why you don't move to Europe?

Yes, because America needs my help more than Europe does to become a sustainable place to live.

Yes, because America needs my help more than Europe does to become a sustainable place to live.

 

Good for you; I was just posting we need people like you!!!

Europe is "sustainable?"

 

Even its environmental sustainability is questionable, and its fiscal unsustainability is becoming more and more apparent.  I certainly don't recall any greater difficulty breathing the air in Ohio than in England.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/01/energy-independence-how-denmark-kicked-the-foreign-oil-habit/

 

I certainly don't recall any greater difficulty breathing the air in Ohio than in England.

 

I always find it interesting that conservatives are unable to look beyond their own experience.

 

Considering Europe's per-capita oil consumption is half that of America's, I'd call that remarkably sustainable.

 

And another reason to like Europe: too many obese grease-licking car-potatoes here in America...

 

 

 

 

I always find it odd that liberals are able to seamlessly transition from looking-down-the-nose arrogance to tacky threadbombs, but to each their own.

 

I was not only looking to my own experience, but I don't find it irrelevant, either.

 

So what if Europe's per-capita oil consumption is half that of America's?  Neither that rate of consumption nor our own rate of consumption are "sustainable" if "sustainable" means "can be maintained forever."  How exactly do you define sustainable, other than "more like Europe than like us?"

^ I think flexibility is a key part of it. As oil supplies deplete, Europe actually has infrastructure to fall back on.

 

Regardless of what you think of Europe's varying degrees of welfare states, you have to admit they have more healthy and sustainable energy and transit programs/systems/policies.

Whether peak oil is exaggerated or not, Europe, Asia, and the more developed portions of South America have diversified their transportation and energy. This gives them much greater flexibility so a peak oil situation or just a price spike like we had a couple years ago would be less damaging to their overall economy. At this point, the US economy is far too dependant on the price of oil because we have all our eggs in one barrel.

^ I think flexibility is a key part of it. As oil supplies deplete, Europe actually has infrastructure to fall back on.

 

Regardless of what you think of Europe's varying degrees of welfare states, you have to admit they have more healthy and sustainable energy and transit programs/systems/policies.

 

Obviously, foretelling the future is something that no one can do much better than the oddly-dressed lady in the hotel lobby with her crystal ball and tarot cards, but I actually think Europe will regret their premature building of their next-generation energy infrastructure.  Obviously, what really matters here is how you believe America *will* react to the gradually increasing supply pressures on conventional fuels over the next few decades, but I believe that we *will* respond with appropriate vigor when the time is right ... which means that our next-generation energy infrastructure will be built with the technology of 2020 and 2030, whereas Europe will be dealing with the same problems we're dealing with now with some of our own transportation infrastructure.  We're stuck with aging physical capital because we built so much so early (i.e., starting in the Eisenhower administration for the interstate highway system), which means that for the moment, China actually has a more modern physical infrastructure than us (at least in the geographic areas that matter to its central government).

 

The year 2035 is still a quarter-century away.  Consider how much of the interstate highway system was built just in the first ten years of the program.  Consider that we are wealthier and more productive now than we were then, and we will be even wealthier and even more productive by the third decade of this century (2020-2030).  Then consider how much cheaper and more efficient solar tech is now than it was just ten years ago, and consider where that trajectory is headed--that paradigm acceleration shows no sign of slowing down yet.  We're seeing similar (not quite as rapid, but still impressive) improvements in storage and portability technologies.  In other words, we will very likely get a lot more bang for our buck by waiting another decade or two before putting a massive amount of federal dollars in play, and we *do* have enough oil to last that long, to say nothing of coal and natural gas, which will last us even longer.

Whether peak oil is exaggerated or not, Europe, Asia, and the more developed portions of South America have diversified their transportation and energy. This gives them much greater flexibility so a peak oil situation or just a price spike like we had a couple years ago would be less damaging to their overall economy. At this point, the US economy is far too dependant on the price of oil because we have all our eggs in one barrel.

 

If we hadn't been mortgaged up to our eyeballs to institutions that were themselves leveraged up to their eyeballs, we would have escaped that oil price spike with less damage than we did, and we *still* didn't suffer all that much from the price spike itself.  And, of course, the spike served as an organic market reminder that there will someday be a strong, sustainable market for petroleum alternatives.  In addition, Europe has actually been hit harder by that shock than we were, though of course, apportioning the causes of their economic misfortunes between the commodity boom and bust, the real estate boom and bust, and their entitlement burden is as much an educated guessing game as an exact science.  If you want to say that they suffered less from the oil spike and more from the other factors, I can't gainsay it, but you can't prove that that was the case, either, since everything basically happened simultaneously or in rapid succession.

^ I think flexibility is a key part of it. As oil supplies deplete, Europe actually has infrastructure to fall back on.

 

Regardless of what you think of Europe's varying degrees of welfare states, you have to admit they have more healthy and sustainable energy and transit programs/systems/policies.

 

Obviously, foretelling the future is something that no one can do much better than the oddly-dressed lady in the hotel lobby with her crystal ball and tarot cards, but I actually think Europe will regret their premature building of their next-generation energy infrastructure.  Obviously, what really matters here is how you believe America *will* react to the gradually increasing supply pressures on conventional fuels over the next few decades, but I believe that we *will* respond with appropriate vigor when the time is right ... which means that our next-generation energy infrastructure will be built with the technology of 2020 and 2030, whereas Europe will be dealing with the same problems we're dealing with now with some of our own transportation infrastructure.  We're stuck with aging physical capital because we built so much so early (i.e., starting in the Eisenhower administration for the interstate highway system), which means that for the moment, China actually has a more modern physical infrastructure than us (at least in the geographic areas that matter to its central government).

 

The year 2035 is still a quarter-century away.  Consider how much of the interstate highway system was built just in the first ten years of the program.  Consider that we are wealthier and more productive now than we were then, and we will be even wealthier and even more productive by the third decade of this century (2020-2030).  Then consider how much cheaper and more efficient solar tech is now than it was just ten years ago, and consider where that trajectory is headed--that paradigm acceleration shows no sign of slowing down yet.  We're seeing similar (not quite as rapid, but still impressive) improvements in storage and portability technologies.  In other words, we will very likely get a lot more bang for our buck by waiting another decade or two before putting a massive amount of federal dollars in play, and we *do* have enough oil to last that long, to say nothing of coal and natural gas, which will last us even longer.

 

+1

 

Do we need a crash course of research where everything is happening much too quick to make informed decesions with? No.

 

Do we need to shift a greater focus to alternatives that are showing fruit and have potential to alleviate our reliance on oil? Yes!

I always find it odd that liberals are able to seamlessly transition from looking-down-the-nose arrogance to tacky threadbombs, but to each their own.

 

 

Yes, liberals are like that too. Too bad I cannot be programmed, caterogized or easily referenced, to quote Spooky.

 

...but I actually think Europe will regret their premature building of their next-generation energy infrastructure. 

 

Yep, that keeping more wealth at home is a horrible thing... We in the U.S. prefer to send $500 billion to $1 trillion of our wealth overseas each year, depending on the oil futures price. We won't stay wealthy for long at that rate of bloodletting.

I can't

I always find it odd that liberals are able to seamlessly transition from looking-down-the-nose arrogance to tacky threadbombs, but to each their own.

 

 

Yes, liberals are like that too. Too bad I cannot be programmed, caterogized or easily referenced, to quote Spooky.

 

I can't, either.  I was indulging your pique.

 

...but I actually think Europe will regret their premature building of their next-generation energy infrastructure.

 

Yep, that keeping more wealth at home is a horrible thing... We in the U.S. prefer to send $500 billion to $1 trillion of our wealth overseas each year, depending on the oil futures price. We won't stay wealthy for long at that rate of bloodletting.

 

You're assuming that the money that leaves never comes back and/or that we get nothing for it.  Money does not vanish at the water's edge, and moreover, we get oil in return for it, which (much as you wish it were otherwise) is valuable, so we simply convert one form of value to another.  Oil is consumed, of course--but money can vanish, too, and in fact, in many Gulf states that profit greatly from their oil trade with us, that money has done just that.  The UAE sunk a great deal of their petrodollars into real estate projects that have collapsed, for example.  Who got more for that money--we who bought their oil, or they who kept their money in-country but invested it poorly?

 

I would be happier if that money were staying in the U.S., of course, but if we get greater value by buying goods and services from abroad, then there's nothing wrong with that.  Economic nationalism serves little purpose in today's world.

I'm glad Gramarye is willing to express agreement to common ground propositions. DanB and Scrabble have an annoying tendency not to do so, making deeper discussions difficult.

What the last eight U.S. Presidents have said about reducing our dependence on foreign oil/energy. Same empty promises, different orator...

 

• In 1974 with 36.1% of oil from foreign sources, President Richard Nixon said, “At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need.”

 

• In 1975 with 36.1% of oil from foreign sources, President Gerald Ford said, “We must reduce oil imports by one million barrels per day by the end of this year and by two million barrels per day by the end of 1977.”

 

• In 1979 with 40.5% of oil from foreign sources, President Jimmy Carter said, “Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 – never.”

 

• In 1981 with 43.6% of oil from foreign sources, President Ronald Reagan said, “While conservation is worthy in itself, the best answer is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy.”

 

• In 1992 with 47.2% of oil from foreign sources, President George Bush said, “When our administration developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our policy: reducing our dependence on foreign oil…”

 

• In 1995 with 49.8% of oil from foreign sources, President Bill Clinton said, “The nation’s growing reliance on imports of oil…threatens the nation’s security…[we] will continue efforts to…enhance domestic energy production.”

 

• In 2006 with 65.5% of oil from foreign sources, President George W. Bush said, “Breakthroughs…will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”

 

• In 2009 with 66.2% of oil from foreign sources, President Barack Obama said, “It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”

 

source: http://www.businessinsider.com/look-who-failed-to-reduce-foreign-oil-dependence-2010-4

At the end of the Earth Day special this year, PBS quoted "candidate" Ronald Reagan telling us that hardworking Americans should not be punished by having to conscientiously use less energy.

 

Thirty years later, we see where that go us.  The only petroleum that is left outside of the Middle East must be obtained at great expense and at great risk to the environment in deep water at the edge of the continental shelf. 

 

And Reagan didn't use the word: "conscientiously".  Conscience is a foreign concept to Reagan and the oil people.

... We in the U.S. prefer to send $500 billion to $1 trillion of our wealth overseas each year, depending on the oil futures price. We won't stay wealthy for long at that rate of bloodletting.

Nailed!

 

    ^--- Carter tried to ban petroleum imports, which was probably the most dramatic of all. Of course, it didn't happen.

 

  The president really has no control over the oil market.

"We in the U.S. prefer to send $500 billion to $1 trillion of our wealth overseas..."

 

Oh come on. Much of that $500 billion to $1 trillion came from overseas oil in the first place.

 

 

Republican politicians fought against increased automobile fuel economy standards forever.  That increased demand for petroleum and the price of petroleum.

 

In all fairness, Congress passed and Bush signed an energy bill with increased auto fuel economy standards in the last year of President Cheney's term of office.

 

Governor Voinovich killed Ohio's electricity efficiency program when he took over.  Moreso because he was beholden to First Energy than his motivation as a RW idealogue.

    "Republican politicians fought against increased automobile fuel economy standards forever."

 

  Even so, fuel economy standards were enacted, and demand for fuel INCREASED. You can't reduce demand for fuel by rainsing efficiency standards. People will simply drive more miles.

 

 

 

   

Got any data on miles traveled?

At the end of the Earth Day special this year, PBS quoted "candidate" Ronald Reagan telling us that hardworking Americans should not be punished by having to conscientiously use less energy.

 

Thirty years later, we see where that go us.  The only petroleum that is left outside of the Middle East must be obtained at great expense and at great risk to the environment in deep water at the edge of the continental shelf.

 

Economically and morally, Reagan was right, and he wasn't the only one who said it.  The oil market is global.  We have no obligation to kill the engines of our economy (quite literally, by the demands of some environmentalists) in order to have a next-to-negligible effect on our need for oil.  If Americans do not choose to drive more fuel-efficient cars voluntarily, that judgment should be respected as a statement that people are more than happy to pay the extra price for the gasoline needed.  I'm speaking on behalf of others here, since I drive a nine-year-old Altima and would love nothing more than to trade up to a fully electric vehicle, but I'm not going to presume to force that choice on others any more than I would approve of them forcing me to drive an SUV.

 

The Deepwater Horizon disaster doesn't change that any more than the Upper Big Branch cave-in changed our economy's need for coal.  Until we have a substitute that allows us to transition to an alternative source without crippling nationwide economic damage, the risks and hazards of fossil fuel exploration and importation are going to outweigh the costs.  I fully support research into the development of such substitutes, but the way to get there is not to ban oil exploration and importation and then say, "all right, good luck, everyone!"  That certainly might incentivize the research, but it would also paralyze the very national infrastructure necessary to actually conduct that research (never mind the construction of new power plants and so forth).

 

Also, it is economically fallacious to say that lower fuel economy standards increased the demand for petroleum and the price of petroleum.  In fact, economically, there is no theoretical reason why the exact opposite cannot be true: If the federal government were to mandate that the *maximum* fuel economy standards for a new car would be 10 mpg, you would see a dramatic decrease in miles driven because people simply could not afford to fill up their cars that often.  By contrast, increased fuel efficiency increases the marginal benefit of fuel consumption, which, ceteris paribus, increases the demand for miles driven (and, therefore, fuel consumption).  In other words, an optional road trip of 500 miles looks a lot more tempting if your car gets 40 mpg than if it gets 15.  There is some driving for which the demand is inflexible, particularly in the short term, but much driving is discretionary--I'm driving from Akron to Cleveland this afternoon purely for leisure.  The round trip doesn't cost me all that much in gasoline (and I know that's not the exclusive cost of driving, but it's the variable we're talking about changing here).

 

Finally, we do have options closer to shore, including on land in Alaska.  A coalition, of which I presume you're a part, of NIMBY and environmentalist activists has thwarted every effort to explore those options.

 

As noted, regardless of what presidents have promised or not promised, the presidency simply does not have that kind of control over the laws of supply and demand.  The economic imperatives for oil development are simply overwhelming.  People expect too much of the government, particularly when the market overwhelmingly renders a verdict that offends someone's non-economic sensibilities.  Reagan simply had less personal trouble with that fact, but it wouldn't have mattered if he'd been a raving environmentalist grandstander in the league of Al Gore.

Got any data on miles traveled?

 

From 30 seconds on Google:

 

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=443

 

and http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=146

 

No idea what kind of site that is, but the numbers look credible to me.

    "Finally, we do have options closer to shore, including on land in Alaska.  A coalition, of which I presume you're a part, of NIMBY and environmentalist activists has thwarted every effort to explore those options."

 

  Yes, there is oil there, but it is a drop in the bucket in the global market. The U.S. consumes 20 million barrels of petroleum per day. At that rate, the ANWR reserves will provide the present U.S. consumption for 3 years. It has been estimated that the ANWR reserves will shift the calculated peak oil date by about 3 weeks.

 

    I'm not saying we shouldn't drill; I'm just saying that the attention that ANWR has received is unwarranted.

 

    There is also a separate similar oil reserve in Alaska owned by the U.S. Navy intended for use an an emergency supply.

 

 

 

Yes, there is oil there, but it is a drop in the bucket in the global market. The U.S. consumes 20 million barrels of petroleum per day. At that rate, the ANWR reserves will provide the present U.S. consumption for 3 years. It has been estimated that the ANWR reserves will shift the calculated peak oil date by about 3 weeks.

 

    I'm not saying we shouldn't drill; I'm just saying that the attention that ANWR has received is unwarranted.

 

On this last point, we agree, largely: ANWR has received attention disproportionate to its size.  However, it takes two to give an issue "unwarranted attention;" if there weren't large factions on both sides supporting and opposing exploring ANWR, we'd never have heard of it because we'd basically have a consensus, which makes any matter much less newsworthy.

 

As for shifting the peak oil date back by very little: That may be true, but I don't think that should be our measuring stick, as almost no discovery will do that--and nor will any realistic conservation measure.  However, diversification of supply does matter, and of course, the ANWR oil wouldn't actually be used up in three years; it would last a long time because it would never be 100% of our supply, but only a tiny fraction of that supply, spread over a generation or more.

 

I don't want to get diverted into an ANWR discussion, though, because my main points were that (a) increasing fuel efficiency doesn't necessarily decrease oil use--it just makes us get more bang for our buck from the oil we do use (which, of course, is a good thing, but it does need to be balanced with other concerns), and (b) you can't legislate away, nor sermonize away, America's need for oil because right now, that is simply an essential part of our overall need for energy.  Energy is a broader umbrella than oil, but for the moment, we have no viable replacement for oil in our energy portfolio.

Got any data on miles traveled?

 

From 30 seconds on Google:

 

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=443

 

and http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=146

 

No idea what kind of site that is, but the numbers look credible to me.

thanks for the dead links

 

Automobile fuel efficiency standards are good policy.  They do cause people to use less gasoline and it is a "realistic conservation measure".

Automobile fuel efficiency standards are good policy.  They do cause people to use less gasoline and it is a "realistic conservation measure".

 

Based on what evidence?

 

I don't know why those links went dead.  Hmm.

 

Hopefully this one works (Excel spreadsheet): http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Spreadsheets/Table8_02.xls

 

Though admittedly, this link shows per capita gasoline consumption in the U.S. flat between 2000 and 2005 (but definitely up from 1990): http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-292.html

"Automobile fuel efficiency standards are good policy.  They do cause people to use less gasoline and it is a realistic conservation measure."

 

  Gramarye and I just provided theoretical and empirical evidence that fuel efficiency standards do NOT cause people to use less gasoline.

 

    Does fuel efficiency cause people to use less gasoline per mile? Obviously, a car that gets 24 mpg will use fewer gallons of gasoline than a car that gets 8 mpg.

 

    However, there is more than one variable. Americans use more gasoline since fuel efficiency standards have been enacted because there are more drivers and also more miles per driver.

Gramarye, thinking about what you said regarding waiting for major infrastructure investments, assuming your crystal ball is accurate... It seems to me this could lead to the conclusion that investments like California is making in modern-tech high speed rail would be inadvisable, but something like 3C makes sense. 3C is of a scope and scale to be a short(er)-term solution for, relatively, not much money. California's system (on your view) could be considered a spankin' new iPad which is inevitably about to be outflanked due the obvious dearth of features upon its debut. 3C is maybe like buying a new graphics card so you can play the latest PC games as they are released, without investing in a new PC just yet.

 

What I mean is: most of the arguments we see on this board daily about building rail (and other multimodal) infrastructure, and shifting money away from unsustainable highway/road infrastructure, still remain valid under your view. Particularly when you consider its power to discourage rampant sprawl, which is under any reasonable account done sooner rather than later, as it is a perpetual drag on our economy and its potential.

 

If my interpretation is correct, the crux of your view, or at least what I take away from it, is that enhancing what we have is advisable over building new. Until we are forced to build new. I wonder how local you would extend this view: should we wait for paradigm shifts in (say) light rail technology before building those systems? What about streetcars as a development tool? Should we wait until suburbia suffers a violent collapse before we geographically concentrate our investments?

[M]ost of the arguments we see on this board daily about building rail (and other multimodal) infrastructure, and shifting money away from unsustainable highway/road infrastructure, still remain valid under your view. Particularly when you consider its power to discourage rampant sprawl, which is under any reasonable account done sooner rather than later, as it is a perpetual drag on our economy and its potential.

 

I agree with the first part, but not the second.  I actually think our sprawling suburbs will become more sustainable in the future, not less, primarily because of improvements in solar panel and capacitor technology.  Since the surface-area-to-volume ratio matters for just how useful a solar array can be, a 2000sf ranch home is actually more well-positioned, in purely physical terms, for a solar conversion than a 10-story condo tower.  Add a plug-in hybrid or a fully electric vehicle to the 2-car garage, and you've got yourself a very sustainable suburban home.  I think we'll see that in the next 10-20 years, with increasingly rapid adoption after that as fossil fuel prices rise.

 

Oil dependence and auto dependence are currently closely linked, but they are not the same thing and I believe that link is severable.

 

However, there's a lot more to rail than its densification effects--and with a good park and ride system, cars simply become another "mode" in "multimodal."  The total cost (internalized and externalized) per ride per passenger is lower, at least if the trains are reasonably full, and time spent on a train commute can be more fully utilized by many in the business world than the same time stuck behind the wheel of a car.

 

Ideally, I would not shift money away from highways to rail and other intermodal systems; I would shift money away from the ever-burgeoning consumption programs of the welfare state (which only the most committed can call "investments") to actual investments in rail and other intermodal systems.  Of course, that's not being very realistic given current politics--but then again, sadly, even modest improvements in our rail infrastructure are running into a facepalm-worthy level of resistance.

 

If my interpretation is correct, the crux of your view, or at least what I take away from it, is that enhancing what we have is advisable over building new. Until we are forced to build new. I wonder how local you would extend this view: should we wait for paradigm shifts in (say) light rail technology before building those systems? What about streetcars as a development tool? Should we wait until suburbia suffers a violent collapse before we geographically concentrate our investments?

 

Well, each of those are different things.  The thing with streetcars is that they are <em>already</em> a positive-return economic development tool, primarily because their costs are typically so low and they make very efficient use of land because of their frequent stops and much narrower rights of way (i.e., often just a lane in a street that already exists).  In addition, paradigm shifts in more local rail technologies are less likely to be game-changers because they don't need to be: who really needs a maglev streetcar?  There really aren't likely to be "paradigm shifts" so dramatic that they would require ripping out what was already there (or, rather, we already had that, given how many streetcar lines were paved over to make way for the automobile).  The cars might get better, but replacing cars is easier than replacing track, and shifts there are likely to be incremental, not game-changing.

 

The Columbus streetcar, which I enthusiastically support, would involve "building new," but not all that much.  The Columbus light rail system that was shot down more than a decade ago would have cost many times as much, and unless you wanted to go to the Arena District, would have put a confused suburbanite at the mercy of COTA when they arrived downtown, so I would have been more skeptical of that (in addition to being too young to vote at the time ...).