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
Bettie - It's a little late now to complain. Where were you in the early 90's when nafta was enacted and in the mid-90's when GATT was put into effect. Probably you were supporting and voting for candidates for single issues that suited your personal agenda .. like your religious preferences or some feminine agenda .. or perhaps he had the nicest hair.
There's some good stuff in those responses. (Now if we could focus those who want to branch into other topics before we deal with this one ... )
-- To:
"Just one thing to add. The risk on relying on public transportation is public transportation Unions."
Capt Obvious responds:
Public transportation is the "old model" -- we need a NEW model. I don't know what it is.
Perhaps there's an entrepreneurial opportunity there. The web connects us in ways that weren't possible even five years ago.
--What if...?
A commuter bus company had enough vans available in your town that one could leave every 30 minutes and you could login (SMS?) to put your name on the passenger list for say .. the 7AM run. This commuter bus company guarantees you an "emergency ride" home on demand. A lot of vehicles would be idle mid-day so that shouldn't be an issue. You could do a similar thing on the way home at night. An hour or so before you're due to leave, you login to book your return seat.
We'd need to work out the "end point logistics" so that the run from city to city actually left on time and didn't take a lot of time delivering individuals on the destination end. Perhaps a fleet of alternative fuel vehicles could fan out in the city ... I don't know. Help me puzzle this out.
The point objective would be having the total commute time (door-to-door) be less than 25% more than driving yourself and having the cost be 50% of what you'd pay by driving yourself. There are some economic saddle points. You need cities located far enough apart that saving 50% of the commuting cost is attractive yet close enough that there are enough commuters to make it worthwhile. Yet those points are the ones that will also give us the greatest payback on overall gas reduction.
It'll take start up money and vision. Two things that better not be in short supply given the direction oil is going.
--To:
"you leave us with that riddle at the end?"
Capt Obvious responds:
Ya. I'm just looking for a definition of the problem that accounts for the important factors and doesn't rely on a knee-jerk response like "punish the SUV users" or "blame it on the car makers."
There's a whole range of solutions that we need to look at long term.
-- Battery powered vehicles for example. We're beating the performance issue on speed and duration, but we haven't dealt with the problem that they take so long to re-charge. So? What if we didn't charge the batteries in the car? What if the battery was mounted in such a way that you could drive into a battery station, pop the latch, drop the old battery out and slap a fresh one in in the same amount of time you could pump 15 gallons of gas? You get a credit for the residual charge on the battery and pay for the charge on the new one. We need to solve the problem of how to charge them ... Perhaps battery companies invest in windfarms the way oil companies invest in oil fields. There are vast areas of the country where solar power is feasible ... can we create a battery industry that's green enough to make sense? In both the environmental and financial sense of "green?" I don't know. Let's think about the problems tho because the solutions we've got so far don't cut it.
-- Telecommuting ... cut out the commute altogether by taking advantage of the same technology that allows the cost effective outsourcing of jobs to other countries to permit people to work either from home or from satellite locations. If we could get 10% of the commuters to not commute at all, that would be a big step forward.
-- What else ... ? Stop thinking inside the box -- or oil barrel as the case may be. There have to be ideas we haven't thought of yet because we keep framing the discussion in the same way.
--To:
"The Big Dig"
Capt Obvious responds:
The Big Dig is not a new model. It's trying to make the old model work. It was never intended to cut down on gasoline use, but rather to reduce commute times. Adding lanes has been proven to Not Work. The Big Dig is an example that proves my point that we need different ideas -- not larger applications of existing ones.
Capt Obvious, signing off.
Some slightly disjointed thoughts:
I agree, to a degree, with Dan's position and objections. However, decrying mass transit dollars does not obviate the necessity for radically increasing / improving mass transit. Population will continue to increase, as will demands on the system in population centers. Furthermore, sucking the last possible drop out of the ground is a band-aid. We could drill every location and open the spigot as wide as it will go, but the result will merely delay the inevitable.
At the same time, I dislike (and distrust) intense federal involvement. Beyond policy direction, I'm not sure that we can expect the federal government to "solve" the oil issue. Big business (read: oil, auto manufacturers, etc) is, to one degree or another, completely enmeshed with current policies and legislation.
More than that, though -- States, regions, cities, and communities are affected in different ways, in both the hows, and whys, of their consumption levels. Rural vs. urban, northern vs. southern, agri vs. industrial -- all have different needs and potential solutions.
Capt. Obvious brings an aspect of this to our attention with the issue of commuting, and the Houston metro-area is an excellent example of the problem. Sprawl is vast (driven by developer-centric planning), the public transportation system is virtually non-existent, and people spend hours on the commute. It's a vast city of suburbs feeding the center (which is not limited to downtown). Jumping off of Capt. Obvious' thoughts - A 25% reduction requirement for Houston would no doubt require a much different solution than elsewhere.
There are many city models that could be followed or modified. I've read that Tehran, for instance, limits private vehicle access to the city center by alternating days via vehicle license numbers. London is also an eye-opener for daily commuting (nirvana to someone living in Houston).
Yet the commuting aspect is just one spoke in the wheel. There are initiatives being undertaken (again, by states) to require a minimum amount of energy to come from renewable sources by "x" date. (New York and Colorado come to mind.) Like the commuting, each state and region has different limitations and options for solutions.
Finding carrots (i.e. $) to encourage states and cities to take initiatives would be difficult without adding to the tax burden (ack).
However, a stick might be appropriate. Could the federal government not direct via policy requirements, and fine at the state level for non-compliance?
How many people are going to do much of anything to conserve energy until they know how? Yes, people know there is a problem, but beyond five quick 'tips' in a newspaper and a few blog posts, I haven't seen any constructive suggestions that I could use.
Public awareness campaigns can be highly effective and are relatively cheap too. How many people (especially in cities and suburbs) would think of combining shopping trips on their own? What if they were constantly reminded for six months straight? People already know they ought to save gas, but until they are educated, it won't happen.
Look, I just found the perfect thing!
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/fuelalrt.html
Ever seen that?
(btw, compare to http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/106842/article.html )
Why aren't those in everybody's mailbox? Why isn't that covered at least weekly on TV? Why doesn't it appear as a full-page ad in newspapers?
I changed my driving habits when I read that. Imagine 30 million "aggressive" drivers driving carefully. Just imagine.
And go tell someone!
Qf the total amount of petroleum products used in the United States what percentage of these products are used for all the plastics, Polymers,etc.products used by all the industries other than for gasoline and diesel fuel. What is the percentage of usage between the two.??how does this ratio affect the price at the pump.
Magnus, you are correct. I drive a hyrid. I have had a few people ask me about it, not because it is a hybrid, but because it starts almost silently. I also have a bumper sticker on the hybrid that asks people to "Conserve Energy - Be a Moving Speedbump - Drive the Speed Limit". That constant reminder has generated more postive attention then the hybrid.
I still defend the concept as at least a band aid to our societal way of viewing this issue.
I smoke.
I pay 5$ a pack for a product that costs less than a buck. Why? Its a burdon on others healthcare costs (in theory) that is unduly created by my choice to smoke. So be it, and society is in near complete agreement that I should pay a penalty.
So, say I choose to purchase an environmental disaster of vehicle. It drains resources that could be put to better use. Is this not the same thing? Why should my sin be taxable but others sins overlooked?
We need to get society in the habit of thinking that conservation is good. We talk about commuting.
Look around you next time you are stuck in traffic. What percentage of vehicles sitting there are single driver behomeths obliviously blowing fuel into the stratosphere?
Its a small step but at least its a start.
I went to your suggested web site, and they do have one thing wrong. Higher octane does increase mpg, but moneywise its probably a wash. But for long distances, one should buy higher octane if not for any reason than to reduce the amount of fuel used at no extra cost.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/petroleumproducts.htm
Fuel products account for nearly 9 out of every 10 barrels of petroleum used in the United States. The leading fuel, motor gasoline, consistently accounts for the largest share of petroleum demand. Demand for motor gasoline alone accounts for more than 44 percent of the total demand for petroleum products.
The pont is, we need to elect political leadership that isn't addicted to oil. "We the people" aren't, the leadership is. For 28 years since the last "oil crisis" incentives to oil companies have been obscene but little or no money has been made available to develop a different fuel engine that is needed. Yet Brazil did but the USA didn't. Brazil's leadership said "Just do it"! Ours said "go shopping".
The basic premise of the unity ticket is that the wheels have come off our two party system. We don't fix that car by describing where to steer it; we fix it by putting the wheels back on it. That would be: how we elect good people (campaigns and elections)and how those elected good people serve well those who they represent (how politicians come to their decisions). Therefore we should: 1) set our own standards for the financing of our campaign, and ask our major party competitors to do the same. 2) assure our voters that their vote is recorded and reported accurately, 3) make any lobbyist activity in any politician's office open to the public 4) hold candidates and elected politicians to high standards of logic and fact in their arguments.
Any good domestic and foreign policy decision is predicated on these four areas. Let's let gay marriage and bush/hillary bashing fall into the merely "important" category, and focus instead on these crucial issues.
Bill Moyer and Bob Kerry.
Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Ron Paul (R-TX). Russ Feingold seems to be the only one in the senate and liberatrian minded Ron Paul one of the few in the house who understand the Constituation and are willing to stand up for it.
The primary reason that "OIL" is a high priority among those polled is that the media seized on oil in connection with our sending troops into Iraq. The ensuing publicity has spread the idea that the US must not be dependent on oil.
If one steps back and considers the situation in a nonbiased way, one comes to the conclusion that oil is, if anything, a minor problem. The price is not high. Relative to historic prices vis a vis other products, it is still cheap.
As the price increases, other sources of energy will become more economical. No worries.
Is this the same bill moyer who sold us the viet nam war and told us pulling social security from a trust fund and into the general fund was a good thing?
Both parties have succesfully reduced political dialogue to a compilation of idol worship. Vote for Bob, he has a cleaner, brighter smile .. If I want to see discussion of idol worship I can tune in to either parties websites.
Here we talk about issues and the issue presently up for debate is "reduce dependance on foereign oil". This is not an issue whos soltuion can occur by discussion of who has a better smile. What we know is that whoever has the better smile, they will never be able to do anything that is viewed by anyone as unpopular. Thus we have increased spending and reduced taxes and .... more problems.
Thank you :)
Washington has been taken over by greed...politicians who will do anything to stay in office...why?
1) power provided by "free" money that you and I are obligated to send their way.
2) generous pensions voted by themselves.
3) "extra" income from influense pedlars.
4) above the law.
Corruption abounds because there is no accountability. Our representatives are above the law and they know it. The government has redefined "sex", remember? Officials can steal classified documents and get away with it. If you are a politician, you can break the law and not be held accountable...great role models for the next generation. Our media looks the other way if it serves their own interests. In addition, the current administration has polarized people because they have brought religion into politics...the same thing done in the Middle East, and you can see where that has gotten them. I like this idea of Unity08. We need to send a message to Washington before the only option we have is a vote between "Hamas" or "Fatah"...and we are pretty close to that now.
Well said Gary.
It has a lot to do with economics or "freakonomics" -- people are not motivated to do something unless it is in their financial interest to do it.
As mentioned earlier -- even the government has a vested interest in the consumption of gasoline - can they really afford to give a 25% reduction in taxes if consumption went down by 25%? It would have to be made up somewhere else.
It's similar to the idea that the drug companies are not at all that interested in finding a cure for diabetes.-- It certainly wouldn't be as lucrative as all the insulin, testing supplies/ strips/ needles that are prescribed each year. (and new versions of each of these products are rolled out each year -- to keep the "generics" at bay)
We have to ask ourselves Is the impetus for changing our dependence on oil really there? How much worse do thing have to get before REAL change can happen? It's a scary question...
I will carefully watch the Unity08 effort and may even contribute money in addition to ideas, but I fear that the founders have missed the major problem with government - federal and other.
The major problem is that government has slowly but surely taken over a majority of the decisions that each individual SHOULD be making for themselves. This has led to massive lobbying from those who want to be making those decisions. And thus the folks who run for office are interested in making even more decisions that should be individual.
Until power is devolved back to the individual it will make little difference whether office holders are Democrats, Republicans, or Unity08s.
Which decisions are you refering to Phil?
Submitted by Michael Barnard on June 4, 2024 - 11:29am.
Which decisions are you refering to Phil?
Let me help you out a little here Phil. If each would take care of themselvs and used personal responsibility, then we could do a massive tax cut and have prosperity.
1. invest for ones senior years
2. Provide for and live a healthy life style
3. Buy private insurance: health, car, home, flood, long term care
4. Pay off ones personal debt
5. Educate your own children
6. Prepare for emergencies
7. Volunteer for community services
8. Dont use drugs or gamble excessively
9
The entire federal tax system causes each individual to make many decisions based on minimizing taxes (if the individual is prudent). One example - if you give alms to an individual instead of an approved organization, you are allowed no deduction on your taxes. Another - do you borrow money on your house, or on something else of value? The mortgage is privileged. Another - would you like to put away money for your medical care in your old age? You can if you are also willing to pay Medicare taxes in addition.
Aside from taxes - you cannot decide to use marijuana for its beneficial effects. If you believe in spanking your children you are in danger of being charged with child abuse. Would you like to contribute a lot of money to a candidate because you truly believe he will make a positive difference? Sorry, your contribution is limited under penalty of law.
This could go on and on into finer and finer detail, but I hope you get the idea.
Better still. If the government didnt provide all these free services which are gamed by the lazy and unproductive, then individuals would do what they have done for centuries ..and provide for themselves.. and all would benefit from reduced taxes which would fund cause prosperity and fund all these self help efforts.
I also think we should grow our own food, build our own bomb shelters and brew our own liquer. hah-ha
"Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2024 - 12:13pm.
I also think we should grow our own food, build our own bomb shelters and brew our own liquer. hah-ha"
Go outside and play. The adults are busy having a serious discussion.
Frist off I just found your site and I think this is a great start. Personally I think that if we are going to really solve the problems facing america now and in the future we will need true joint solutions from both parties.
Though I had a question
Could you have banners that were true poster size to download. I work at Fedexkinkos and if you had a banner that was 24-36 or something simualar in size I could print that size and display it outside were I live.
Just a thought
It is very simple on how to get the big money out of the political races.
I should say the idea is simple, but getting it passed is another story.
1. The purpose of the House is to represent the citizens of their district. Therefore, it must be illegal for members to take money from any company, corporation or lobbying group.
House members can only take contributions from citizens living in their district.
2. Senators are to represent the constitutions of their particular state. In order to take the big money out of the senatorial campaigns, Article XVII of the Constitution must be repealled and the senators need to once again be appointed by the legislatures of their individual states.
and dont foget to make your own clothes while your at it
Folks,
This is going to become just another shoutdown unless and until we can focus. The topic is relieving dependence on foreign oil.
Can we hold the side discussions and gratuitous snarkiness to a minimum and talk about issues of transportation, gasoline use, and the social changes we might consider before we start throwing more rocks?
Thanks
Capt Obvious, signing off.
Well Howdy Captain:
Are you wondering the same thing as I am? Where are all the people who placed oil self reliance at the top of the list of issues?
The only discusions realted to it I have seen so far have come from people like us who feel this issue isnt numero uno. Personaly i'm not sure its a top 5 but .... :)
back to my modified sin tax idea ...lol
Nomad -- Okay, I'll bite. (smile...)
There are reasons, beyond vanity or "just cuz I can", for purchasing an SUV.
For instance: We purchased one of these behemoths last year. I hate driving it - it's too big for me. However, we needed to be able to put at least two more kids under belts than our car could handle, to participate in a school carpool.
Minivans didn't fit the demands we saw for making the commute on Houston's highway system; we needed a lot more "umph" under the hood.
Net result is that we now drive the 30-mile round-trip only once a week in the monster, vs. five times a week in the "normal" vehicle.
On either the trip back, or running in to pick up the kids, there's only one person in this beast. It must look as if we're utterly careless about our gasoline usage... but in fact the situation is the opposite.
Would we be subject to the sin tax? What I'm really asking is: Is it possible to empirically quantify or qualify vehicle purpose by type?
In all honesty, I think we're too far into the weeds. (imho), I'd prefer to see the federal government determining a percentage reduction policy requirement and timeline for compliance, which is then implemented at the state level. The level of oversight and management required by sin taxes will only increase the size of the already-massive federal government.
Like my boss always says: Keep it simple stupid ...
Modified sin tax/
Add a 30 cent per gallon tax to gasoline.
Give people a 400$ annual tax credit to offset the tax.
If you conserve (burn less than 1400 gallons a year) you win. If you guzzle fuel you lose.
Reward conservation/penalize indifference.
Net result .. consumption drops by even 1 or 2 percent balance will be tipped in favor of supply and price would drop for everyone. Less oil dependance, more time to develop grandious alternative energy schemes.
Snaz the bill up a bit. Make the tax go into effect on Apr 1.
Give people the credit up front. Then if your down and out you cant cry about the extra cost because you will have the cash in hand first.
This is a joke. Isn't it?
Making the de facto one-party political rule we already have in this country is going to make things better, how?
Look, can any of you, besides the bs boilplate "cultural" issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) see any real difference between the Republican party and the Democratic Party. Both don't think anything's fundamentally wrong with a "free market," "free trade," NAFTA, the long, slow death of the labor union movement or the occupation of Iraq, to name a few.
So what's the point??
The death of the labor movement is a self inflicted mortal wound although i suspect suicide. Imagine the labor unions demanding wage raises and life time benefits when globalization and low price manufacturing was already was the norm for the world.
Ok, by the numbers then ...
Average household burns 4gallons of gasoline a day = 1438 gallons a year.
Tax paid at $.30/gallon is $438 a year.
Tax credit is $400 so they're paying the premium on 10% of the gas.
Those people who already burn less than 4gallons a day make out well and have no incentive to cut back.
Those people who burn more than 4gallons a day get pinched and need to take action.
We've already established that the majority of gas consumption can be accounted for by commuting to work (see my previous post and you should be able to google up the sources as well as I can).
So, there is one key element that I don't have data for, but maybe somebody else does ... We know the national average is about 30 minutes. That's what you get when you add up all the minutes and divide by commuters. We need to know the median. That's the number in the middle where half the people commute more and half the people commute less than 30 minutes.
The problem with averages is that your head in an oven and your feet in a freezer doesn't mean you're at a comfortable temperature. Depending on which way commuting distance is skewed (and I have to believe that more people live "close to work" than those living "far from work"), this sin tax may be more trouble than it's worth.
If the median is substantially below the average (that is, "live close to work"), then all those people will have no incentive to change and that will leave only a few people at the upper levels who'll have to change their behavior -- or pay the tax.
It the median is substantially above the average (that is "live far from work"), then this plan might work out because that means more people are using more than 4gallons a day and the load will be split more equitably.
But the larger problem is that it provides a penalty without providing a remedy. Adding a .30/gallon gas tax only means that the job I'm driving 20miles round trip for each day isn't paying as much. I still have no alternatives to making the trip, other than finding a job closer to home. The incremental $438 in taxes is being mostly offset by the $400 tax credit. I can't save enough in tax credits to be able to afford to move. Especially since if I move closer, my spouse may now be further and the total gas consumed by the household isn't going to be changed much. Even if I commute 100 miles a day, there's not enough incentive (punishment) here to even pay for the car payment to trade to a more efficient vehicle. And with just the tax plan, there's still no good alternatives to driving myself to work.
Now ... the plan does generate a surplus of $3.8B a year. The tax on 146B gallons of gas a year is about $43.8B and the tax credits are only $40B. THAT money might be seed money to provide grants to create the kinds of alternatives to commuting that would give people a choice on whether and how they go to work each day ...
Nomad may be onto something.
I also think you underestimate the psychogical effect. The volatile energy prices of the past year have given us some graphical evidence that gasoline consumption flattens out as prices near 3$. By adding this tax you are holding the price there and above, so pshycolgicaly even the people that are either net zero or net gainers from the tax will still have the incentive to hold back on their consumption.
Just ballpark figures I was using and I was actualy trying to get it to be revenue nuetral or close. The seed money though might be a nice plus /// just thinking :)
Left and right should be able to unite on a policy of allowing divisive social issues to be settled at the state level, as the Founders intended.
Allowing the national government to set policy for everyone everywhere only ensures that every decision will be clawed over tooth and nail, because the stakes are so high.
Let residents of liberal states like California and Massachusetts suffer under liberal governments, and let residents of conservative states like Utah and Alabama suffer under conservative governments.
Let those who don't like it move somewhere more suitable, instead of trying to push their agenda on everyone else.
The problem with the above is that too many people want to rule over everyone else....
Feingold/Paul would be a great ticket -- against the war and for civil liberties; pretty much the opposite of most of their Democratic and Republican colleagues.
Well stated. I can't improve on what you said. This is how it's supposed to work before it got morphed in the 70's and 80's and states rights took a fatal hit.
Nomad said
"I also think you underestimate the psychogical effect. The volatile energy prices of the past year have given us some graphical evidence that gasoline consumption flattens out as prices near 3$."
Ya, I am .. purposely. My sense (altho I have no data) is that if the price maintains at the $3 plateau, people will become acclimated to buying at that price and consumption will start rising again. I'm concerned that the flattened consumption curves won't be maintained much beyond 6 months.
Ron Paul has too much respect for himself and his principles to get mixed up in national slimeball politics.
I think Nomad and Captain Obvious are on the right track. My eternal thanks to the person that mentioned that there is a need to discuss issues, not individuals. The minute we go off into personal attacks we are no better than either the Democrats or Republicans.
The problem with oil is not tied just to oil consumption but to the decisions it forces the US into because of our need for the stuff.
The cost of our petroleum dependency is not only economical and ecological, but political as well. If we become energy independent, it puts us in a much better position to deal with South America, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East, as petroleum stops being a consideration, or at least as much of one.
I believe that any consideration of a "sin tax" has to include the total cost of petroleum dependency, not just the immediate cost.
How we calculate that is beyond me, but I do believe it should be a consideration.
The bottom line is that people change for only two reasons, fear or desire.
There is either a fear of the negative consequences of not changing (being subject to a sin tax) or the desire to take advantages of changing (tax credits, reduced fuel expense)
The reason government has to get involved is that the market won't do it by itself. The minute oil prices drop, we'll be right back where we started. We have to push or pull, but we can't expect the pendulum to just magically move by itself.
Another peripheral issue of fuel conservation:
How to make affordable housing available in close proximity to where the jobs are, so that living closer to one's job is more attractive. Many people commute because they can't afford to live in the community where their job is.
Oil staying at a high price (artificially or otherwise) works to reduce people's consumption. Look at Europe, where gas has been above $6 a gallon for some time. 60% of the cost of a gallon of gas is in taxes in those countries. The taxes are used to support public transportation and provide incentives to drivers to drive less.
The result: higher use of public transportation and use of much smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.
I am still of the opinion that doing a combination of things will be the best solution:
1) Encourage conservation through the tax code.
2) Invest in public transportation.
3) Find alternative fuel sources and make investments in those. I believe that biomass fuels are the best option right now as they are the closest to being in full production.
Larry
Quite a few years ago, I remember hearing that one of the reasons we are so dependent on oil is that as new technologies were being developed, the rights to those technologies would be bought out by those that benefit from the status quo and then those ideas were not developed further. Does anyone know if there is any truth to that? Letting the free market work is one thing, but messing around with competing technologies that could have kept us out of this mess is another.
One possible benefit to higher fuel prices could be a shift to less urban sprawl and a revitalization of some of our cities.
Accountability in our government in all area's, period. It's time, find the one's who will do this. We'll support them.
Captain:
I hope your wrong although I see your point. I have heard talk of this desensitizing factor, like once the sticker shock wears off its off to the races again. We will probably have more data as to where the jury comes in as the summer goes on.
I also wanted to make an additional point. We are sitting here looking at the commute as the key. What if it isnt? Maybe we should view the commute as the constant in the equation and its the mysterious other half where the savings will come from. Might be a lot of that burn is pure frivoulous waste.
Nomad asked this really good question:
"We are sitting here looking at the commute as the key. What if it isnt? Maybe we should view the commute as the constant in the equation and its the mysterious other half where the savings will come from. Might be a lot of that burn is pure frivoulous waste."
I looked REALLY closely at the equations. According to the EPA we (the US) burn 400M gallons a day in gasoline for transportation. That's 4gallons per household.
Many households (most?) have two commuters. My first post calculated the gas consumption for one commuter at about a gallon a day - which is based on an average 30 minute commute -- which in turn I'm estimating at 15 to 20 miles on the basis of an average speed of about 35 to 40 mph. That's probably low. I also counted incidental driving as about equal to the daily commute. That's probably high. Call it a gallon and a half per commuter and double it for two commmuter families.
But again, that's average and only a rough one at that.
So, if this average household burns 3 gallons in what I'm assuming is necessary driving -- about 60-65 miles a day. That leaves 100M gallons a day unaccounted for.
There IS another sector, and that's the commercial/government sector. Emergency vehicles, state cars, taxis, couriers, and other industrial vehicles need to get their fuel some where ...
But splitting out 100M gallons per day -- 25% of the daily consumption -- for business and industry transportation still leaves the lions share of consumption with the private consumer.
It's not as much as when we first started trying to get a handle on it, but the problem statement is becoming more accurate.
And that leaves an interesting segment that we SHOULD be able to make some kind of dent in. The burden of conservation shouldn't fall completely on the residential consumer.
I wish we had some better numbers on the amount of gas used by industries (like taxi cabs), and state and local governments...
And Larry made this important observation:
"Many people commute because they can't afford to live in the community where their job is."
Amen to that. I know that there are a lot of places in the country where the jobs available in a town don't pay enough to allow people who have those jobs to live there.
Which leads to this interesting comment by JB:
"One possible benefit to higher fuel prices could be a shift to less urban sprawl and a revitalization of some of our cities."
I think the key there is "some" ... key to attracting people into towns has to be affordable, equity housing. I live out on the high-plains in Colorado and I can't afford to move closer to Denver (where there are a lot more jobs) because the housing costs in the city are just too darn high ... perhaps 3 to 4 times higher than my current housing costs for a comparable home in town. So Larry's comments on affordable housing and JB's observation about revitalizing cities interlock.
And, of course, there have to actually BE jobs in the city other than service sector jobs.
Finally (I've thought enough for one day) I do like Larry's multiple approach strategy. I think we need to do all those things, too.
I'm still on the fence on public transportation, tho. I believe there's an entrepreneurial solution in there for a new kind of transportation model. I'm thinking some kind of spoke and hub commuter line linking cities -- or even regions -- with diesel coaches for intercity runs hooking up with electric, natural gas, or hybrid jitneys to handle the 'last mile' problem.
Heck, even something like ZipCar (http://www.zipcar.com/) where city drivers share the use of a vehicle might be a viable gas reduction approach -- especially if they roll out in other cities with alternative fuel vehicles.
I think we're getting closer.
It's obvious here that once the discussion gets going, some commenters are less concerned with the prospect of reducing dependence on oil from terrorist-sponsoring nations as they are with attempting to socially engineer fuel usage in support of some other cause.
If your wondering how I arrive at this conclusion, it's because the simple answer to reducing foreign oil dependence is to produce more of it domestically, but this option is blown off in favor of expensive civic projects, higher taxes, and social engineering.
Must any number of personal agendas.
Sorry, personal agendas are the problem in government, not the solution.
My solution to illegal immigration is admittedly extreme, but if implemented I guarantee it would work:
Notify Mexico that after a certain date (gotta give them notice) any illegal immigrant crossing the border onto United States soil will be considered an attack upon the United States by Mexico, whereupon the U.S. will respond in kind - with military personnel crossing their border and heading to Mexico City.
Think after we issue a statement like that the Mexicans won't police their border with us a lot better?