You voted. We listened. And we heard a lot. It was clear that the first issue (of the ones listed in the poll) you want to tackle is “dependence on foreign oil,” but you’re passionate about many other issues as well.
First, we want to address a sentiment we heard LOUD and CLEAR: you want to talk about immigration. And we will. And we'll talk about a lot of other issues here, too. But let’s all agree not to jump to conclusions and to disagree, agreeably.
There will be no special agendas here – every voice is welcome – every opinion to be respected. The last thing we wish to do is stifle debate and discussion about real issues. We'll leave that to the two parties. The issues included in the first poll were based on the findings of a research survey we commissioned weeks ago. We're not out to exclude one issue over another. We'll get to them all.
The Unity08 movement is not like the two parties - that's one of our key strengths. We will not point fingers and accuse each other of some slight or hidden agenda. We're here to focus the country, our leaders, and the parties on the issues that need serious, sober discussion and passionate discourse. Some critics claim we're here to force everyone to "just get along" for the sake of just getting along. Not a chance. We will debate (and frequently disagree on) the solutions to the critical issues with all of the passion our blog contributors can muster - but it will be about the critical issues and not the emotional wedge issues, which the parties manipulate to their own benefit.
We need you to help everyone who participates in these blogs to understand what Unity08 is all about by continuing to encourage and cajole those who would rather just rant and rave to get on board with what we're doing. Enough said?
On with the blogging!
So you want to talk about America's dependence on foreign oil. As a primer, here are a couple of recent commentaries about the subject: One from Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, and the other from Mike Rosen, a commentator from Denver and columnist for The Rocky Mountain News.
Friedman, among other arguments, says (taken from "A Million Manhattan Projects" column found here - subscription only, we're sorry to say):
When you're talking oil, you can't just say, "Let the free market work," because there is no free market in oil: the producers have a cartel, and governments -- like ours -- subsidize oil, so we don't pay the full cost.
If the government would just do a couple of things, the energy start-ups we're seeing today would turn into real products, Mr. Sridhar said. One, the government should institute a carbon tax or gasoline tax that would ensure that the price of gasoline never fell below $3.50 to $4 a gallon, which would make a host of new technologies competitive. Second, the government should set high goals for mileage and CO2 emissions for its own vehicle fleet, as well as high goals for eco-friendly, low-energy electricity generation for every government building -- and then promise to be the first customer for whatever company reaches those high goals.
"The federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the country," Mr. Sridhar said. "It's time for the government to lead by example and flex a little consumer muscle. It's time for government to use its buying power when buying power."
President Bush remarked the other day how agonizingly tough it is for a president to send young Americans to war. Yet, he's ready to do that, but he's not ready to look Detroit or Congress in the eye and demand that we put in place the fuel-efficiency legislation that will weaken the forces of theocracy and autocracy that are killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan — because it might cost Republicans votes or campaign contributions.
This whole thing is a travesty. We can't keep asking young Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan if we as a society are not ready to make even the most minimal sacrifice to help them.
On the other hand, Mike Rosen says, (taken from a recent column, "Our silly little 'addiction'" found here):
...the point is that all oil production becomes part of the world supply, and the price of oil is a function of aggregate demand for that finite supply. Changes in the amount supplied or the amount demanded cause the price to go up or down. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from or what it costs to extract it from the ground. So, lower cost producers, like Saudi Arabia, make more profit per unit of oil than higher cost producers like the United States. OPEC doesn't set the price of oil; the world market does that, although OPEC can influence the price by controlling its production.
It's silly to talk about our "addiction" to oil. We're no more addicted to it than we are to food or water. It's a commodity. We use it as an energy source and petrochemical raw material because it's abundant and a better value than other alternatives. We could have horses pull our cars but it wouldn't be as efficient - and you'd have to feed and house them, anyway.
It would be nice to find economical alternatives to petroleum and we no doubt will some day. Perhaps we'll solve the puzzle of nuclear fusion and figure out how to harvest water for its hydrogen power. General Motors and other automakers are working feverishly on developing fuel-cell technology. Conventional nuclear energy is a viable alternative for more power generation right now but environmental extremists have succeeded in sufficiently demonizing it to scare much of the public and politicians away - at least for the time being.
Once upon a time, whale oil was a major energy source and people worried, then, about demand outpacing supply. Petroleum solved that problem - temporarily. In President Bush's State of the Union address he talked about accelerating the pace of technological research into energy alternatives. That's a necessary and obvious remedy.
The history of human progress is the history of solving today's problems with tomorrow's technology. And we will do just that once again. But don't kid yourself about kicking our oil "addiction" or ending our dependency on foreign petroleum any time soon. For inescapable economic reasons, we're stuck with that for the foreseeable future and with all the international political complications that go along with it.
So what say you? Have at it.
Subscribe
Immigration: Do we really need 20 million law suits? Just imagine, if employers, who hired an illegal, were fined or jailed, and then appealed their conviction (Don’t look so shocked) --- it would be necessary to build a new Pentagon-size building just for the legal staff. Remember, to most solutions, there is always a “bureaucracy of unintended consequences” Meanwhile, Carmalita goes about her job scrubbing floors at the nursing home.
From my experiences it seems clear that we are oil dependant by choice. Viable alternatives come and go but never really seem to catch on. Why? Rumour is that the technolgies get squashed, bought up and disected, because the profit stream generated by oil consumption is established and distributed to the satisfaction of the powers that be. If they dont want for us to break the addiction how can we?
I would be entirely supportive of an increased tax to cut consumption, I would go further and support a form of rationing. People dont need SUVs and they dont need to be aimlessly cruising the streets because they can.
However oil products are also a necesity. Perhaps in the way of modified rationing we could use a system of increased tax modified by a annual tax voucher based on geographical factors (such as someone in Montana would likely need to consume more gasoline than someone in NYC).
Any tax revenue must be entirely devoted to promotion of alternative fuels.
We also must keep in mind that many people here in the north rely on oil products for heating their homes in the winter and the burdon of runaway costs must be cushioned somehow. The only altenative in regards to heating is burning wood and if 10s or 100s of millions of people start burning wood simultaneously we may never see another clear sunny day ...cough,choke.. :)
err.. Did i say Carmalita was scrubbing floors at the nursing home? What i meant to say was Carmalita was home pregnant with her 3rd anchor baby .. while her boyfrind Carlos was was fencing his last stolen car .. and will be home sonn with the meth.
If we do not prosecute our soldiers for wrongdoing, we are sending the wrong message to the world. If we do not pursue justice, we have become all too similar to those who wish to do us harm.
Regarding the incident in Haditha, of course the soldiers were in a situation that few of us could even imagine. One of their buddies had been brutally murdered. They were seeking immediate revenge for those responsible. But if we ultimately say that this is simply the price of war - that sometimes innocent people get caught in the crossfire - that mistakes can happen and we just have to deal with it - that is WRONG. It all depends on the circumstances. If you drop a bomb on a building full of bad guys and mistakenly kill a janitor you didn't know was in the basement - that's a mistake. If you knowingly walk up to an unarmed woman or child and shoot them in a fit of rage - that is something else entirely. By not prosecuting this type of behavior, we are saying that ANY heinous act can be forgiven as long as the perpetrator was under extreme stress when it happened. This logic is seriously flawed.
It should be obvious by now that many of the people who get involved early in minor party politics are ideologues with weak understanding of how issues fit together.
Just allowing people to post stuff is just going to produce a bunch of noise.
If there is a need for a third presidential candidate, let's see some leadership from the smart folk putting this project together.
What is the threat to the United States that is not being addressed by the GOP and Dems?
Jasper K. is using the Clinton defense. Clinton only bombed iraqi facilities and suspected terrorist hideout at night when only the maintenance and cleaning staff were resident.. not during the day when it would do real damage. Is this what your suggesting?
Let's hold our political and military leaders accountable.
Generals, admirals and politicians that have encouraged, condoned and covered-up human rights violations should be held accountable in court.
I'm not sure I see the connection between the "Clinton defense" that Anonymous mentions and my earlier comment. My point is simply that, even in war, if someone intentionally kills an innocent person, they should be punished. If someone unintentionally kills an innocent person, they shouldn't. War is messy and mistakes will happen - probably many more than we'll ever know about. But even under these extraordinary circumstances, there have to be limits. EVERYONE cannot be forgiven of EVERYTHING just because the circumstances are extreme.
OK .. i agree .. accountability is a good thing. Let's prosecute Janet Reno and the heads of the ATF and the FBI for the civilian massacre at Waco.
Heightened levels of world polical tensions can basically be traced to the rising demand for, and the corresponding limited output of oil. In short, this is a process of spiralling greed by producers. The most obvious answer, so simple it defies the imagination, is to initiate a process to include additional producers in more geographical locations. With prices at these levels the incentive is certainly there. So what's the problem? The environmentalists, a relatively small interest group with access to mega dollars, hold our politicians hostage, thereby endangering our future from two perspectives: National security and economic growth. Instead of acting for the best interests of this country, most politicians are choosing to align themselves with the special interest groups and neglecting responsibilities to serve their constituents. So powerful have these special interest groups become that our representatives no longer serve us. In fact the whole system is now running in reverse, the power is no longer in the hands of the people. If this situation is not rectified immediately, a small minority will usher in a future that will spell disaster and ruin for the average American.
IMO this approach is simply postponing the inevitable. At best, if you assume the supply of domesticaly available oil is infinite, increased drilling would do nothing about the dependence on the product to begin with. It would leave us no better prepared to face the future than we are today.
I find your poll summary telling. Last on the list is Gay marriage where 22% see the issue as crucial. Yet, it's the primary focus in the House and Senate for next week. I believe this proves the point of Unity '08.
This is great - let's secure Republican domination of Congress and the White House for another 4 years! Idiots like Broder and Noonan latch onto this because it gives them something new to bloviate about. Don't you get it? This will draw away Dems and maybe a few Republicans, but in the end the Republicans will always get enough of their hideous right-wing base out to vote, and Democrats will lose thanks to Unity08. This is an idea that Rove would love to have come up with ...
A variable energy independence contribution (and I suggest we call it or something else that sounds more like a contribution and less like a tax) that keeps the price of gasoline at around $3.00 - $3.50 regardless of the "real" price would be ideal. The money raised would go to the following:
1) Rebuilding the infrastructure for rail and other mass transit.
2) Providing tax incentives for those who purchase new fuel efficient/flexible fuel cars and trucks.
3) Providing tax credits to producers of new energy sources (bio-diesel, ethanol, fuel cells, solar, etc) to ramp up production and do R & D
4) Providing tax credits to aid in putting infrastructure into place to make the new fuels readily available.
I would also recommend a 15% energy inefficiency tax on any new vehicle that gets less than 25 mpg avg city/hiway.
The main thing we have to do at this point in our history is to make driving inefficient cars and not using mass transit painful enough that most people will decide it's easier and cheaper to do the right thing.
I personally think ethanol and bio diesel are the best chances for petroleum independence at this point, and not just because I'm from the Midwest. The infrastructure changes required are minimal (new tanks). The technology is already established. Brazil has already shown it can be done.
Let's make petroleum and energy independence our objective and a key part of the platform.
Ok, since you feel so free in giving away someone elses property for your own self interests. How about you giving me $40,000 as an incentive to buy a new car ..and i will promise to only drive it 5 miles per day. You get cheaper gas and a new union job .. and i get to church on time.
No gain with no pain ...
Problem is, pain needs to be truly shared. If it turns out that a price in the 3-3.5$ range is sufficient to curb demand (as seems to be indicated by the last few price runups) then ideally this tax (or contribution or whatever it is called) might idealy be set to hold the price at this level. This seems to be the price level which limits most peoples fuel consumtion to necesities.
But even at this level who would feel the pain. People in the most vulnerable segment of society would suffer disproportionatly while the wealthier few would likely continue to waste fuel as usual since this minor cost (minor to them) would not be notable.
Thus I feel in the best interest of all ... to spread out the pain, we would need to determine what is a reasonable level of personal fuel consumption (to get to work or church or the mall and such) and then tax any personal consumption above that.
This wont be an easy formula but this isnt an easy issue and if we are serious about addressing it then we should spend the time.
I think that the Rosen article is incredibly short sighted. He says that "it doesn't matter where the oil comes from," but this is not true.
In 1973 the United States had the biggest energy crisis it had ever experienced when OPEC cut off all its oil imports to us to discourage backing Israel in the Yom Kippur war. After the famous oil embargo, Nixon and his predecesors decided that we had to diversify our sources. Enter Saudi Arabia.
An alliance was formed that would stand strong for years to come. Saudi Arabia promised to provide all the oil we would need in return for our political support of their nation. In the following years, billions of dollars were poured into equipping Saudi Arabia to pump the oil we would need. An entire work force was imported from surrounding countries to work the pumps. Because these people would need places to live, eat, etc..., an obscure Saudi construction company was granted the contract to build the new infrastructure. That company was Bin Laden construction. The rest, you know.
The point is, it DOES matter where our oil comes from. It's no accident that most of the most unstable countries in the world also happen to be oil producing countries. The highly competitive market means that we must assert undue and unasked influence all around the world. That breeds resentment. As long as we continue to consume oil at the pace we do, we will continue to be the enemy of the third world.
help me understand this concept of "sharing the pain". I'm guessing you mean if some find it hard to purchase their lottery tickets, booze, meth.. tatto, gambling junket .. and cant give a cell phone to each of their middle schoolers.. then I must bear the burden and pay extra for my gas. Hmm. Well its a novel thought that i'm going to have to think about. In any case i'm confortable with the thought that gas is cheaper today adjusted for inflation then ever before in history.. and 1/2 the price in europe. The only problem is the profits are going directly to the terrorists via the power structure of the middle eastern countries.
"feel the pain" ...
Hmm .. maybe the wrong words.
I view this as a sin tax basicaly.
The sin is not using necesary amounts of fuel. The sin is using excessive amounts of fuel. Thus if you go to work, its not a sin and you should pay zero tax. If you go to work driving a hummer that gets 6 mpg than thats your perogative but you wind up paying the tax.
By simply taxing the fuel as a whole, you hurt people who are doing basic tasks and also businesses who should be kept exempt. Additional fuel tax on deliveries would be a killer.
Noman, I think your on to something here. I believe i understand the concept now. I think it might work .. but should be extended. I suggest that 100 flight miles is enough for any person.. and if one thinks he/she needs to fly 3000 miles then we add a large surcharge. Since we only need 1200 calories/day to be healthy.. we should tax the h*ll out of those that could afford more. And 2 rooms should surfice for any family,( most in the world share 2 rooms) .. then we tax larger apartments and houses as being excessive. And since the resources of the world appear to some as limited.. then only allow 1 child per family .. before adding a excessive consumption tax on couples that may be greedy enought to want 2 children.
1) I would suggest that on the home page as part of the link to http://unity08.com/blog , you put a link to the issues that were voted and the results.
2) For your interest, you might also point to such other sources as: http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm and such analysis's of the American Character as: http://people-press.org/reports/display.html3?ReportID=242
Lol ,, I wouldnt say Id go there but this is supposed to be the debate page and I dont see anyone posting any other ideas so there is my minute of fame. Whats your idea?
I suggest you do NOT link to those phoney polls and studies. Those are the exact polls and studies that are driving our corrupt and incompetent politics today and created the mess were in. Example: education was in the top quintile of importance in the election of 2024 and now its appears to have 7% or less interest .. and yet nothing has changed in the last 6 months. These polls are all agena driven.
My ideas would be to balance the budget and pay off the accumlated debt and add an import tax to adjust the runaway balance of payments. Do a Manhattan project to switch to alternate fuels by the end of the decade and kiss the moslems goodby.
These are great ideas but lets see ... first we pay off 7 zillion in debt then spend another few zillion for this mega manhatten project2 and we do all this while continuing to send boatloads of money to muslims which we will then exterminate?
Every play monopoly? You just ran out of cash a long time ago.
First off, this is not the first "energy crisis" our country has ever seen, and some of the commentors here would do well to familiarize themselves with past mistakes that exacerbated the problems in the past.
1) We already experience a "Sin Tax" on the price of gasoline. On the average, we already see more of the price per gallon going into taxes (government profit) than we see going into oil company profits:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html
http://www.logictimes.com/gastax.htm
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
More taxes has not lowered the price.
2) Price controls and windfall taxes ALWAYS lead to shortages:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1684
Our country most notably experienced this folly in 1979:
What I don't understand is why people who think the politicians are too corrupt want to give them more power. Reduce the politicians' power to grant favors and make those in the American market rely on their ability to be competative, rather than lobbying regulations designed to reduce competition and goverment bail-outs.
3) What few people seem to understand about economics: that if alternative fuels, or mass transit was economically viable, it wouldn't need a government program to succeed, because someone with an entrepreneurial spirit would sell it on their own-all it takes is for government to get out of the way. There is (or at least there was) private mass transit.
In my personal opinion, it is best to let the market find the best alternative fuels. Who's to say that, if given the incentive to do so, some genius out there will discover a renewable alternative that runs in a standard gasoline engine with a minimum amount of modifications? Already we have bio-diesel, so the idea is feasably valid.
Now if a government program institutes soem other less-than-perfect alternative, you risk the possiblilty of killing the incentive will be there to create something better, or of wasting alot of taxpayer dollars of a better alternative does come along. Economically speaking, it is best to let the people decide what to invest in on their own.
The unltimate problem with government intervention and engineering in the market is that there are ALWAYS unintended consequences. Bureaucrats do not care what happens beyond the next election, and they do not care what your long-term investments are unless they can use it to manipulate your vote.
As far as those of you out there who want to use government to force your preferences on others (i.e. trying to keep people from driving SUV's, for no other reason than bad science or personal political agendas), you are nothing more than little dictators, and people will continue to drive big cars and big motorcycles despite you.
Let supply catch-up with demand. The Chinese are already drilling in the Gulf, and your own over-reactive environmental restrictions have put us in the position we are today. Let there be drilling in the artic and offshore. Build new refineries. We can even allow there to be environmental oversight at drill sites, but don't get so ridiculous that you make our country more dependent on outside sources of energy for no reason than to feel better about yourself.
Dan;
So if I understand your perspective, we can reduce our dependance on foreign oil by letting the free market dictate?
Umm .. how does that do anything other than maintain the status quo?
I mean, somehow this topic was rated as "most important" by the poll here and noone has offered a single suggestion as to how we are to do that, or make even the slightest progress.
I believe the route, at least initially is through conservation and I believe that if we are "addicted" than like any other addict we will not simply be able to kick cold turkey. A reduction in consumption of even 1 or 2 % would be enough to kick the balance in the direction of oversupply and subsequent price drop.
What you suggest seems to imply that all is well,,, carry on.
By the way, the free market has not acted to promote any alternatives, it has acted to retard them. For instance, in 1997 a division of United Technolgies succefully produced a number of city busses to run on the streets of DC on fuel cells powered entirly on air and water. This promising technology was purchased outright by general motors who have sat on it for 9 years since .. from production ready to mothballed in a blink of a wad of stock options. Why?
The free market is not free.
Nothing is.
We must be typing at the same time because I now see you solution, drill drill drill.
Umm, proven oil reserves is a fact not a theory. Its a sad thing but in this hemisphere there is only so much oil and most of that is locked in oil sands in Canada. Drill your arctic refuge, I could care, but it will do little other than offset the drop in production from the original alaskan pipeline.
The one remaining viable source of untapped oil is in the Baltic region of the former soviet and NONNE will risk capital to play there for reasons of geopolitical risk. We dont nned more risk. Iraq shows us the cost.
First, if you have a link to the United Technology story, it would be appreciated. Yet even then, a "promising technology" does not mean it was a viable one. What was GM's given reason for canceling the project? You seem to be alluding to a conspiracy, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you know.
Also, there is a major fallacy in the "proven reserves" logic. The fact is, we are not in danger of running out of oil.
BTW, we are not "addicted to oil"; that is hyperbole. The fact is that people don't want to deal with the economic realities of bad government. There is plenty of market incentive in drilling for new sources of oil, and the only thing stopping it is government regulations, so your argument about the "status quo" is not valid.
Are you going to make me look up a 10 year old link? The companies name was International Fuel Cell of Windsor CT. I worked there so I know the story inside out, thats why I cited it although Im sure you can find countless other similar ones.
And its not necesarily a conspiracy, its standard business practice. The fact is that our current economy is tooled entirely around use of hydrocarbon based fuels. GM is as likely to scrap their entire production line to offer an entire line of new products that would require retooliong everything they own as they are to force their board of directors to accept performance driven salaries.
We are starting to see a shift into offering a choice of alternatives based upon financial INCENTIVES, not disincentives. If you dont pay them enough they will leave things as they are. Why wouldnt they?
As to the "are we running out of oil or is this a hoax" question ... really, I dont know, but I have seen this line played out on us several times before. Most of the world has been seismically mapped many times over so I doubt there are many surprises left beneath. Maybe there are one or two but in the end we still wind up watching our leaders kissing some sheiks behind ... and for what? We can do better, we have the technology, lets use it.
First, thank you for acknowledging the issue of illegal immigration.
About foreign oil:
Nuclear power plants emit no greenhouse gases, produce cheap and reliable energy, and are not dependent on hostile regimes for uranium (over 50% or world supply comes from Canada and Australia.
Cheap, plentiful nuclear-generated electricity can be used to power electric cars in the near term, and to power hydrogen fuel cells later.
The Unity08 platform should advocate a reduction in the onerous regulations that have brought construction of new nuclear power plants to a halt in this country. Since the last nuclear power plant was built in America, over 50 have been built in France, which now gets 78% of its electricity from nuclear power (compared to 20% in the US).
In defense of my suggestion for an energy independence contribution:
Arguments seem to fall into the following categories:
1) It's unfair to the poor and middle class because they would be affected more than the rich.
I'm part of the middle class, and because of a family situation, I drive 230 miles a day round trip to work. I drive a fuel efficient vehicle, but I still feel the pain of gas prices being up around 3.00 a gallon. When I buy my next car, I will probably look for the most fuel efficient vehicle I can find, or a flex-fuel or diesel vehicle, for the purposes of putting my money where my beliefs are.
Yes, this tax is somewhat regressive, but that's also why there are tax credits for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles and for mass transit. As a percentage of the population, My guess is that the middle and lower classes use a greater proportion of fuel than the super rich and thus causing them to change their habits would have a greater effect.
2) If mass transit/alternative fuels were economically feasible, someone would be doing it already. This is a chicken or the egg argument, in my mind. People won't buy alternative fuels unless there are vehicles to use them and infrastructure to deliver them. Nobody's going to build vehicles to use them or implement infrastructure unless there's a perceived demand.
Mass transit was gutted in this country because of the vested interests of the car manufacturers. Yes, rail would probably have to be subsidized, but Europe has been doing this for sometime. There's no reason we can't do it here.
Finally, there's the "I'll give up my SUV when you pry my cold, dead hands off the steering wheel" contingent. I dont' know that you have to give up your SUV, just realize the economic and ecological cost of your vehicle on the rest of us. If you use more resources, you should pay more, in my opinion.
Larry
Not my first choice -- but then, my first choice wasn't in the list -- however ...
We use about 20M barrels of oil a day in the US. A bit more than 13M barrels go into making gasoline .. just over half. Another 10M go to industrial use.
So. Capt Obvious says that the biggest gains come from the biggest sector. Tracking the math, on average each household in America uses 4 gallons of gasoline a day. That's about 80miles a day, on average -- that's about 2 hrs a day behind the wheel. We're playing fast an loose with the industrial transportation sector, but play along.
If we could cut our transportation consumption by 25%, that would represent about 3M barrels a day -- about 15% of total consumption. That represents about 60M gallons of gas a day. We need to consider what a 25% reduction in gas tax revenues might mean in other sectors, but we're focusing on oil here.
Before we can cut down, we need to consider where the gas goes.
Probably the largest single use of personal driving is the daily commute to work. But the US average commute (US Census data 2024) is about 30 minutes a day. At 40mph, we're driving 20 miles to and from work. That leaves 60 miles -- and about 3 gallons -- a day unaccounted for.
Where does the rest of it go?
According to the EPA the average gas mileage is about 22mpg. That factors in the gas monsters and the hybrids. We're talking averages here -- everything taken in aggregate and divided by all the pieces -- so where are we burning the other 3 gallons of gas a day?
Assume that all other driving -- store, church, kids, etc, takes up an equal amount of time as the commute to work and you're looking at 2 gallons a day on average.
That's for one commuter.
But a lot of households are two income and that's probaby where the majority of the rest of it goes allowing for some use in business transport.
So. The answer is 25% fewer miles or 25% higher gas mileage.
But how?
Raising the price of gasoline won't solve the problem and the price changes will be most harsh against those who can afford it least.
Forcing automakers to increase gas mileage won't cut it. With over 600M vehicles on the road, new car sales will take decades to eat into the backlog. Unless you force each new car sale to take two old cars off the road and feed them into a crusher.
What we need is a new model of commuting.
Mass transit is inconvenient, time consuming, and unreliable. It also lacks granularity in that in most areas of the country, there is no mass transit connection.
Carpooling is a problem for anybody who has small children, works irregular hours, or commutes a long distance. Finding somebody to partner with would cut your commuting costs in half -- but leaves you in a bind when the school nurse calls your office. The fact that this may never happen at all does not remove the risk that it MIGHT happen and no parent will voluntarily place their child in that kind of situation.
We need the ability to collect commuters from 50-70 miles out of the city and get them to work on time and provide them with an "escape hatch" in case of emergency so they can get home if a kid gets sick or a significant other gets injured.
We need that model set so that the commute does not take more than 50% more time than driving themselves.
And we need the model not to cost more than 3M barrels of oil a day.
Let me see if i got this right Larry? Because you CHOOSE to commute and pollute the air 4 hours per day so you can enjoy your comfy home in the burbs, I have to pay an extra tax on my gas.
and you dont think that $3 gas is enough incentive for consumers to change their buying habits?
and you think living in Europe is better and where you would like to live?
Very good analysis. Good to have people like yourself trying to solve the problem and not social engineer it. Just one thing to add. The risk on relying on public transportation is public transportation Unions. Not only are they very demanding and keep inflating their worth and demanding more money.. they are also vicious and can call a strike anytime for any reason like the transit strike on the busiest shopping day in NYC last november.
Captain Obvious:
You were doing some great work breaking out the numbers for us and then you leave us with that riddle at the end? Come on dude, you must have more than that. Give it up. Im all ears :)
One more thought. If the number of busses, taxis, lease car rental vans, etc. operating in the cities used natural gas as an alternate fuel that would be cheaper and less polluting, it would divert more gas to general hyway use. In the confines of a city, fueling stations could be implemented very efficently.
Captain Obvious:
I cant solve your riddle but I can add some thoughts. These are from my personal experiences in Metro Boston but Im sure most cities flow the same. There are three major routes into the city from the north and these routes are paralleled by three commuter rail lines. The commuter rail lines tend to be lightly used for the reasons you stated while the parallel highways are 6 lanes of bumper to bumper crawl-a-thons.
The biggest reason I think this is?
While you can easily drive from your home to the rail station and park in the convenient lot nearby and hop the train ... when you get to the other end, whatever station along the way that may be; your stuck. getting to your final destinationis virtualy impossible.
I could invision having a lot of busses working the routes from the transit stops to the biggest employers on scheduals that would get them there at the typical times but basicaly there is not of that. you get off the train and there you stay ... unless you are going into the city itself and most people get off first.
hmm...
You forgot to tell the Capt. that we just spent 16.7 big B Billion dollars and 10 years of fraud on the Big Dig to cure this problem. And only open for less than a year.. its worse than when they started. So much for government curing problems.. the government is the problem.
annonomous?:
Shh ... we dont want to discourage the captain. Maybe he has an idea :)
It's a wonderful change to find a cause one can be excited about (unity08), but first things first. No matter how our nomination process works out, what counts is exactly that - are our votes being properly recorded and counted? No matter who unity08 puts up for president will have no chance of being heard or developing influence as long as there is as much chicanery with voting machinery in 2024 as there is now. Which means unity08 will have to mount a parallel operation to force states to accurately count every vote cast, and ensure every registered voter has an opportunity to cast their ballot. Better yet would be a campaign to do away with the electoral college (over 700 unsuccessful attempts so far since colonial days!). I hope there is a plan to do take on voting irregularities.
Whether we like it or not, creation of wealth and distribution of wealth is changing.
Every country in the world is facing energy crisis. But some seem to be responding better than others.
My understanding is that Brazil is essentially energy independent. How come they could do it, and the USA can't?
Anyone know the details?
The opportunity to replace the current system of campaign finance is great under the concept of Unity08. I will make a contribution (perhaps small), which should help the process of wresting national elections from special interest groups and corporate interests. I have supported the campaign "Americans for Campaiagn Reform," which postulates that for just $6.00 per citizen from the nation's budget, American politicians could be fully funded without having to kowtow to funding sources that create (and enhance) political promises that are not in the interest of American citizens in general. I would hope that the internet and groups such as yours would move our nation into a cohesive body that would return to congress and the executive branch men and women who have the interest of the needs of the nation at heart.
Finally, may I say that Unity08 may become a de facto congress. Since the United States Senate and House have rendered themselves impotent in many areas, perhaps the will of the people in mass will convince our elected officials that they must respond to our needs and (carefully considered) wants.
Ethenol,Bio Diesel,Why not? It's better for the enviroment, cheaper to produce, made in America, helps farmers, and recycles waste. Use hemp in place of plastic. There are many solutions that are affordable. Just no good representation to carry the movement forward. Old oil money and old expensive, deadly ideas.
My husband has been told that his job may be sent to of all places Viet Nam.He fought there in 1969 and lost family and friends.Now it looks like he will lose our sourc of encome.At our age ther is no starting over.We have to stop this goverment from out sourceing the middle class.
What do people think of the idea that the inability of either party to come up with practical solutions argues against Unity 08 being "party of the middle"?
In my mind, common sense is not to be found in the middle between the poles of the political party.
Common sense resides in the combined intelligence of the real people on the ground.
Knowing the right issue to talk about wins elections..sometimes.
But coming up with real solutions is the point.
The "experts" - politicians, talking heads,consultants are just not doing the job.
It's only common sense that they spend most of their time raising money. (Most reasonable people would naturally do the same) If you are spending time on raising money, you're not spending time on figuring out solutions.
The only people who are incented by common sense, are the people who have to live with the consequences of decisions made.
Members of congress have the best job security and health system in the world. Their kids go to the best schools. Their families have bright futures.
The problem is not taking that away from them, but how we reasonalby expect folks who live in that world to pay attention to problems on the ground.
And if you don't pay attention, you'll never come up with a solution.
It's the process, not the people.
Lots' of talk and money spent about getting the people to vote. But it's only common sense that politicians mean they want to get their voters to vote, (and discourage the other guys supporters from voting.)
Wouldn't it be common sense to just allow people to vote over a full week? Is there any common sense reason to do it on 1 working day in the middle of the week.
Other countries have 2 or 3 days voting periods... the only function it serves is to keep the total cost of voting high to the individual voter, so that only the "core' groups will pay that cost.. And winning an election becomes a "manageable" way. Energize yout target group.
What would be the effect of a full week of voting? Don't have to change the election laws. Don't need to invest in high tech, dangerous voting machines. Just invest some of that money in keeping the polls open to lower the "cost" to the consumer-citizen.
We know that even if there is more oil in the ground within our borders (and there is), and if there is an economically viable alternative energy (nuclear power is one-as Mark pointed out), and we can't do either due to taxes, restrictions and regulations-all of which cost money, and make a possible solution impossible.
Cpt. Obvious illustrates the excellent reasons why some of the popular alternatives won't work. But to meet the requirements he sets would take a massive undertaking in mass transit infrastructure, and would be a massivie waste in taxpayer money if their is indeed a better alternative out there.
Of course, it costs Congress next to nothing to free-up the market and repeal laws intended to discourage progress. Unless of course, you count lobbyist money and votes.
My position comes down to this:
"We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success - only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period, contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."-- Ronald Reagan
I simply do not believe that it takes a massive and costly government program to fix a relatively simple problem of supply not meeting demand. Much of what we have today doesn't exists because everyone waited around for government to invent it, indivuals did it themselves in their own garages and workshops.
P.S. Nomad: This is the internet, without some kind of respectable third party proof (i.e gov't or major media source website-or a site that links to one) then I have no way of knowing what you say is true.
Here's the kicker, obviously United Tech decided the technology wasn't worth their time, so they sold it, GM bought it, and then decided the same. Assuming this information is true, and without any further info, this tells me that the technology wasn't the best economical choice for either party, and anything else is moot speculation.
Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It's a fictional thriller, but well-researched and uses actual scientific facts (unlike DaVinci Code) that is a rather eye-opening look at the problems with the Global Warming argument.
Please diregard the last one, intended for another thread but for some reason got thrown into this one. Doh!