By that time, no one except the upper-class will be able to afford gasoline anyway.

But can a comprehensive rail system be built in 7-10 years?

 

I'm all for rail my self, but it doesn't even seem to be in the conversation. It's all about what it will take to for people to maintain what they have.

 

If I were a betting man (and I am), I think drilling on the coasts and Alaska will happen before the public wants an all-encompassing rail solution to be developed.

No, but bus transit is almost as energy efficient. And nothing is more fuel efficient than walking or biking. Telecommuting isn't too shabby either!

Florida’s governor, Charlie Crist, a Republican, immediately joined Mr. McCain, saying he, too, now wants an end to the ban.

 

...and Crist is on McCain's "short list" of possible running mates.

By that time, no one except the upper-class will be able to afford gasoline anyway.

 

I dunno about that, I don't think that the need for a personal transportation vehicle is going to disappear anytime soon (some trips are simply not feasible on public transit or rail).  I think it will merely drive people to make better choices about what they use the gas consuming vehicle for, and the consumption level of the vehicle they choose.  Gas still isn't as as expensive here as it is in Europe (relative to income) and people still drive, its just that they do it a whole lot less.

 

As far as who is to blame - I blame the faux conservativism that has reigned supreme that last 8 years, where its somehow "conservative" to decrease taxes while at the same time vastly expanding spending and letting the US dollar depreciate like nobody's business.  Personally, I think that one of the biggest contributing factors is the value of the dollar, and the ridiculously insane fiscal policies of the current administration.  (along with many other factors of course - including supply of oil, increasing costs of extraction, a lack of focus on conservation, etc, etc)

^The weak dollar is a huge part of the high gas prices. It'll be interesting to see what happens after the credit crunch bottoms out. Will a stronger dollar lead to lower oil prices and right back to where we got ourselves in trouble in the first place? I sometimes despair that our economy at its normal running temperature (over-heated) makes it impossible to make long-term investments for rail and transit. All the more reason to strike now with rail and transit plans. 

Why publish a graphic showing emissions per vehicle type? Because emissions have a 1:1 relationship with a vehicle's energy efficiency...

 

 

A more expanded version....

 

Quick!  Everyone buy a Prius!

I really wish that graph had included motorcycles... My motorcycle does better than prius mileage, but I am pretty sure its dirtier (gallon for gallon) than most cars...

By that time, no one except the upper-class will be able to afford gasoline anyway.

 

I dunno about that, I don't think that the need for a personal transportation vehicle is going to disappear anytime soon (some trips are simply not feasible on public transit or rail). I think it will merely drive people to make better choices about what they use the gas consuming vehicle for, and the consumption level of the vehicle they choose. Gas still isn't as as expensive here as it is in Europe (relative to income) and people still drive, its just that they do it a whole lot less.

 

I don't think anyone expects cars to go away completely, but people will get sick of choosing between being cooped up at home or spending large sums of money to get where they want to go.  That makes a demand for walkable and bikable communities with transit.  That way you won't always have to use your car.

The timing on the e-mail that started this thread is uncanny. Has anybody noticed how the energy discussion has turned to off-shore drilling in the last few days? Even McCain has adopted it:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_BxqnVbkA

 

The silver lining to McCain's flip flops: half the time he's speaking the truth.

A GREAT segment from MSNBC about how sloppy deregulation is permitting the oil futures market to operate exactly like ENRON:

 

McCain, gas prices and the Enron loophole

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25252591#25252591

 

^^^Assuming we lifted the ban today (ha!) we wouldn't see the first drop of this oil for another 7-10 years.

 

True, but I think there is an argument to be made that if the US okays more drilling it will reduce the rampant speculation that is contributing to the rising prices. 

 

I'm with hohum, though.  The Bush administration is not what I'd call conservative.  I've been very disappointed with the ridiculous amount of spending and with the devaluation of our currency (due mainly to incessant rate cuts) that is also contributing to the problem. 

 

All the more reason to strike now with rail and transit plans. 

 

Definitely.  The more plans like House Resolutions 6003 & 6004 that we can get passed during this "crisis", the better.

One of the candidates is seizing on the role of the energy speculators...

---

 

Obama wants energy speculator crackdown

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that he wants to crack down on energy speculators.

 

Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that he wants to crack down on energy speculators.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/22/obama.speculators.ap/index.html

And in related news, the secret behind McCain's Maverick, go-it-alone conversion to pro-offshore drilling:

---

 

67% Support Offshore Drilling, 64% Expect it Will Lower Prices

 

Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.

 

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

 

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

 

Continued...http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_lower_prices

Here's a snippet of something I wrote for another website....

_________________

 

What demand is there for drilling in the off-shore regions and ANWR when the oil companies haven't touched three-fourths of their existing leases to drill on 44 million acres federal lands? Those leases to oil companies by the Bush Administration are appearing to be more of a land grab, with leases amounting to less than $3 per acre per year.

 

One more thing about ANWR and the off-shore oil fields. If ANWR began producing in 2013, it would hit its peak production (876,000 barrels per day) in 2025 and then decline thereafter. That 876,000 barrels would represent just below 4 percent of America's current oil consumption. In 17 years, if America's oil consumption growth from recent years continued, that 876,000 barrels would represent less than 3 percent of 30 million barrels per day in 2025. But that growth in consumption isn't likely to happen because America's existing oil fields have depleted from 10 million barrels per day in 1970 to 6 million today. They may fall faster as Alaska North Slope oil production rates decline by half by 2025.

 

As for off-shore oil, there's an estimated 18 billion barrels of recoverable reserves there. At maximum production, that represents slightly more than 1 million barrels per day, or about 5 percent of the U.S.'s total current consumption (just under 4 percent of projected 2025 consumption).

 

ANWR and off-shore sources combined are projected to provide 2 million barrels per day of oil by 2025. Ironically, in 2025 existing domestic oil fields are projected to decline in their production by 500,000-3 million barrels per day depending on whose numbers you believe. It's quite possible we might be no farther ahead. Does that mean we shouldn't drill in ANWR and off-shore? If you expect drilling will mean a return to the days of $1.50 gasoline (as recently as 2003!), then you will be very disappointed. But if you hope to postpone by 20 or 30 years the death of the airline industry, the collapse of interstate trucking or even preserve for the next generation the joys of polyester, nylon, acrylic and plastic (all made from petrochemicals), then keep drilling. But drilling is not a panacea.

But if you hope to postpone by 20 or 30 years the death of the airline industry, the collapse of interstate trucking or even preserve for the next generation the joys of polyester, nylon, acrylic and plastic (all made from petrochemicals), then keep drilling. But drilling is not a panacea.

 

So, are you saying that acrylics and plastics are a bad thing?  I'm having a hard time determining your stance on those from what you've written there.

Nope. I'm saying they're made from petrochemicals. Too many people think oil is just fuel for transportation.

 

And since you asked, burning oil for any purpose is a waste, IMHO. Once it's burned, you can't recycle it. It's gone forever. I'd rather see it used to make polyester, nylon, acrylic, plastic etc. At least when we're done with those things, we can recycle them and make new stuff.

Oh, okay.  I totally agree then.  Sometimes people take a stance that plastics are "bad" because they aren't biodegradable.  Personally, I think they've been a boon to our modern world, and think that their benefits far outweigh their detriments.  Thanks for the clarification.

Not to say there aren't huge opportunities out there for alternatives to petro plastics. Some friends gave us a bunch of tall kitchen trash bags from these guys and they rule (both the friends and the bags): http://www.trellisearth.com/

The cost of petro drives the cost of pharmaceuticals.  We are all going to get old and need medications and it is going to cost us dearly. 

Oh, okay.  I totally agree then.  Sometimes people take a stance that plastics are "bad" because they aren't biodegradable.  Personally, I think they've been a boon to our modern world, and think that their benefits far outweigh their detriments.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

Plastic dependency is the same as oil dependency.  Not only that but plastic is poisoning our environment every day.  There's no reason why we can't use biomaterials or use plastics that can actually be easily recycled.  The same goes for everyday products such as beverage cups, food containers, and compact disc packaging.  Plastic use isn't necessary in all the facets of life we do currently.