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
Keep it up and oil middle eastern oil wont be worth a hute! Conservation, alternative fuels and digging for oil in Nevada! The only problem with that is Saudi Arabia won't be needed and the royal family will misplace an important part of their bodies and the Iraq people will have to work instead of living off of the nations oil reserves! Remember, protection of the royals and international security is the only real reason we dont dig for oil and build refineries in Nevada! After all the largest producing oil well in the United States is in Nevada? Hey buy up the desert today!.....
lets face it guys we are a country addicted to oil. we're "oil heads". look in your neighbors driveway, the parking lot at work , or the car lot just up the road. see all those gas guzzling SUVs. .
it is time to take action in each and every home in America. if you own one of those gas guzzlers either sell it or park it. get a car that gets no less than 30 MPG and drive it 90% of the time.
write your senators and representatives and demand that cafe requirements be raised and alternative fuel cars be required of all manufacturers.
and if your elected officials do not comply vote them out of office. thats where the real power in America lies. THE VOTE.
i favor voting every single incumbent out of office in one big statement . sure we may lose a few good people but it was george washington who saw the danger of serving for too long and limited his service to 2 terms. i say no more than 2 non-consecutive terms is enough for any one person to serve.
we must be conservative in our use of gasoline and bold in our use of the power of the vote.
UNITED WE STAND
The roadways are shared by all motorists. Motor vehicles crashes are probably the biggest cause of accidental death in America: http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsFULL.html
Survivability in these accidents goes to those in the larger vehicle. Thus to drive in a small vehicle while others are in large ones increases the odds of death or serious injury. The additional fuel cost is worth the additional safety to many, who realize that the most dangerous part of their day is that spent in their car. It is "cheap insurance". Higher speed limits also increase the number of fatalities.
I dislike the misuse of this term "oil addiction"; this is the kind of emotion-fraught baggage attached to many issues, such as "death tax", "the unborn", etc. that politicos have used to cloud issues and stifle debate. Instead I would say that many Americans should concede that they/we have an abiding passion for speed and power.
I suspect there are no easy answers, but perhaps there are incremental improvements that Americans can accept. For example, you could impose a differential surcharge on vehicles based upon how many people they kill, counting only how many persons are killed by that vehicle that are not *in* the vehicle itself (there is already sufficient incentive to avoid buying 'deathtraps', the problem is getting killed by other, larger vehicles). A similar tax could be applied to commercial trucking companies; this would incentivize them to be careful in who they hire for drivers. A modest tax, that increases year by year, might eventually provide incremental benefits in a number of areas: fewer deaths on the roadway, lower fuel consumption (if heavier vehicles are involved in more deaths), possibly less pollution. The tax could be made 'progressive' by taxing just those vehicles in the in the upper quartile of kills per 100,000 vehicles; the tax could be imposed at the point of sale or re-sale, or perhaps the states could impose it at annual registration. Debating a tax might at least raise awareness of what vehicles are involved in the most deaths to others.
I am no great fan of taxes; none of us are. However, I cannot help but notice that much more money is being spent than is being taken in, and a better balance must be struck. There are probably better approaches than this one, and I would like to hear them debated here in courteous and civil discourse if possible, and with respect for all those who have lost someone on a roadway.
Just because the vehicle saves fuel, does not always mean it is a small piece of plastic wrapped around the driver. I ride on two wheels as choice, but with new fuel or hybrid vehicles, you can still have the safety and "get up and go" of a Hummer without drinking the reserves.
Sketch, you make a valid point, but I don't think the automotive companies should be allowed to use the argument of safety to avoid doing the extra work to make fuel efficient vehicles. They of course need the fuel distribution set up. Both the vehicles and the fuel distribution can and should be on a Go-Live as soon as a plan appears.
I found this article informative:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/060427/bw20060427493909.html?.v=1
more air pollution, poorer fuel efficiency, a ploy to avoid CAFE penalties. Are we being misled?
To learn more about death rates and what is considered a "safe" vehicle, please see this site:
http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/deathrate/index.htm
I believe this indicates that the mindset is obtaining a vehicle that provides its drivers with greater safety. The consequence I have posited is that this leads to heavier cards that are a greater danger to others. Whenever you see crash test data, cars are rated by how well they protect one compared to other cars in that class. But if that artificial "weight class restriction" is taken off, the most survivable vehicles are the largest, heaviest, strongest ones. The laws of physics cannot be repealed. To quote the site:
Weight Class - Statistics show that if two vehicles with the same NHTSA full frontal rating crash into each other head on, but one vehicle weighs twice as much as the other, the occupants of the lighter one (2000 lbs / 909 kgs) are eight times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the heavier vehicle (4000 lbs / 1818 kgs). However, vehicle weight offers no safety advantage or disadvantage in single-vehicle crashes.
Weight reductions in passenger cars, lighter vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) increased the risk of fatal crash involvement, a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded. The study of 1991-99 models also found that large four-door passenger cars and minivans had the lowest fatality rates of all vehicle types.
The study, done on the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, found that:
Modest (100-pound) weight reductions in heavier (3,850 to 5,000 lbs.) light trucks and vans (LTVs) had little net effect on crash fatalities.
Modest weight reductions in the heaviest LTVs (greater than 5,000 lbs.) were associated with a reduction in fatalities in other vehicles.
One hundred-pound weight reductions in lighter LTVs and most passenger cars significantly increased fatality risk.
Of note, occupants of the lightest cars have dramatically higher death rates. Also, most significantly from a safety point of view, heavy pickups and SUVs are associated with far higher death rates in the OTHER vehicle than in themselves, or than death rates caused by comparably heavy cars.
*********
My point: they will tell you that the car they are selling you is very safe compared to others in its weight class, but if that weight class is a light one, your survivability when encountering a heavier vehicls, such as a Hummer, may not be what you think. The guy in the Hummer will likely walk away from a crash with a lighter fuel-efficient car. This is an incentive to buy the Hummer: hence a 'tragedy of the commons' or, if you like, the equivalent of an 'arms race' on our roadways. Energy independence and a variety of other benefits are to be had by having fewer of these heavier vehicles. There should be some counterweight to the safety advantage they afford.
Ok, I thought you were saying that CAFE standards were endangering people by making cars lighter and unsafe.
As for heavy cars needing reduced to save lives, that's a valid point. But what of mass transport, minivans/suvs for large families? Large cars are needed in some cases and people feel safer if their vehicle isn't hidden in their shadow.
There are technologies in shock absorbtion and lighter(yet just as sturdy) construction that will allow larger vehicles to do their job and still not become WMDs.
Until the problem is solved, we just gotta hope MPG plays more of a role in getting small, safe vehicles on the road.
SO SOME OF YOU DISLIKE THE TERM OIL ADDICTION. DOES OIL DEPENDENT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER. YES SOME FAMILIES NEED BIG VEHICLES , THAT IS WHEN THEY ALL NEED TO TRAVEL TOGETHER. WHICH , I BET IS NOT ALL THT OFTEN. SAFETY, DONT THROW SAFETY AT ME. LEAVE YOUR CELL PHONE AT HOME, DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT AND BUCKLE UP.
YOU WANNA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ENERGY CRISIS INVEST IN BIO-FUELS, RENEWABLES AND MAKE YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMNET DO THE SAME. AND REMEMBER YOU HAVE THE VOTE SO IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY VOTE THEM OUT
I'm all for alternative fuels and I hope something is done soon. It's depressing to think it will still be such a problem when the next election comes up.
As for the minivan thing, sure the whole family doesnt have to pack into them every day. But what are they to do? Buy a van and a second car for the other days. That isn't always an option, especially for large families. They buy a van because they need one and have to drive it everyday if they can't buy a second car... to save money?
But I do agree that the biggest safety problem on the road are people not knowing how to drive. But making small vehicles safer elliminates the debate over if CAFE standards will make people drive small tinfoil cars that people die in.
As a fan of the late Paul Tsongas who spoke passionately about our generational responsibility to promote fiscal responsbility, I am appalled at the current fiscal policies in Washington. I think both parties need to be challenged about how, specifically, they will attack the largest deficits in American history. That is the real test of 2024. That is the real question.
That strategy is typical of Bush and the Repugs, they blame and vilify everyone else just as Hitler blamed the Jews and books for his political and power strategy. Swiftboating someone else is the Rove Repub way of doing things.
It is now well accepted that Pres. Jimmy Carter's energy laws and initiatives were the correct ones. But as soon as Reagan(the sleeping pres) got into office he cancelled Carter's efforts. That is as usual Repug politics and that is what has a stranglehold on this country.
Pres. Carter was/is an engineer and brought an engineer's approach to the energy problem, he used the scientific method not the Repug political method to solve America's energy needs.
What I am saying is until America finds another Jimmy Carter who will bring science to bear upon our energy problems and at the same time is willing to stand up against the oil companies our energy problems will not be solved. And don't tell me it is up to the people to make their will known. Since the Repubs have sold America out to the corporations they have all the power. The people have no power. Our system of 'Checks and Balances' is no more because the Dems have almost no power. So the Dems cannot help in any way no matter how small.
I say all of the above and I'm not even a Democrat.
There is ample evidence that there exists a multiplicity of solutions that must and can be brought to bear on the energy/global warming problem. But don't depend on idiot Bush and the Repubs to do anything to solve this problem, they are beholden to Condi Rice, Carla Hills and the oil companies who will not allow any efforts toward energy independance because it cuts into their profits.
Their profits are their first allegiance and America and the world are of little if any significance in their thinking. They gladly send our troops to be killed and maimed for their neocon and oil idealogy. They gladly commit tens of thousands of Iraqi's to death and misery for their own bank accounts.
These people are criminals who sell America out with every gallon of gas they sell.
How much better off America would be today had Pres. Carters initiatives been fully, fully implemented way back then. Those initiatives and the resulting and ongoing progress since then would have put America in way far better shape than it is now.
So there is no such thing as Republican patriotism, they are just a bunch of UNAMERICAN CRIMINALS.
We do not have to wait until 2024 as Bush says for fuel cell technology to be developed and oil independance to come about. There are literally hundreds of strategies available right now that can be put into effect.
In July of 2024 there was a wonderful article in the latimes.com written by their automotive writer and repeated in the Christian Science Monitor a month or two later that detailed many excellent strategies. READ IT, you will be amazed at exactly how many strategies are available right now.
For example using 'off the shelf' components a Toyota Prius can be modified that will give 160 mpg when driven properly and 120mpg when driven improperly. At 160mpg that means the vehicle would have to be filled up only about twice per year.
Does anyone really think the oil companies will allow such a vehicle to be used. Does anyone really think the Bushie Repubs would allow such a vehicle to be funded with taxpayer dollars, our dollars.
There is a man who in his fourth generation design has a vehicle that gets about 6,000mpg and claims his next generation design will get about 8,000mpg. I don't remember his name but his 8,000mpg design is almost finished.
High School students at Mater Dei H.S. in Evanston Ill. developed a test bed vehicle that got 1,000mpg. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, folks, high school students!!!!!
My greatest fear is that Bush and the Repubs are giving huge amounts of money to the oil companies so that they can gain control of ALL alternative fuel technologies and continue to hold America ransom to their energy control of America.
The oil companies and Big Agribusiness, like ADM, will have America forever in their stranglehold.
American corporations are, as someone said, like sharks, they kill and feed. That is what they do.
More than thirty years ago I subscribed to 'New Shelter' magazine for a few years. Therein were displayed many home designs that cost about 15-25% more to build but the end result was they were heated with no fossil fuels, needing only sunlight and a different design. In fact these homes were so warm, even in very cold northern climates, that a window had to be left open to bleed off the excess heat. It's just that simple. Buy a copy of this magazine and you will be amazed at the hundreds of designs and strategies available. There are construction companies that specialize in this type of home building.
Bob DAmico
Cleve, Oh.
Well written Bob DAmico. I would tend to agree.
We play right into the hands of two party corporate control when we listen and believe them as they blame each other... when in reality the two party system works together like a childish brother and sister to stop reforms... the establishment wants and needs a 50/50 split in congress, elections and public opinion... what does that tell you! Brainwashing Americans and using propoganda control to keep America split down the middle. Telling us we must support one head to fight the other...neither head in the middle! If you are a democrat or republican you legitimize corporate control of our government and a more friendly form of slavery called "FREE TRADE". Save America and buy locally! http://www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Submitted by Porter McNeil on June 8, 2024 - 10:49pm.
Porter's choice in candidates in regard to fraud seems a little forgetfull. Tsongas campaign manager is still doing time for defrauding his contributors .. about $7 millions worth. And Tsongas knew all about the scamming the voters about the massachusetts miracle in 92. Their was no economic revival in Mass, only mass deficits .. unpaid pention funds, and vendors who were not getting paid. NO, I dont want a candidate like Tsongas.
The rest of the world will justly drop to their knees in the next decade as a new political movement rises in America. A movement which puts Americans first and the rest of the world second in every way. An America that supports its own people by spending our dollars in America on products made by Americans! No longer allowing the rest of the world to cheat American business with trade deficits and slave labor! America is coming back to reality and realizing we are in a economic war against red China and slave labor! It is time to play our trade trump card before we lose the war! To hell with Communist China and their slavery produced trinkets! Oh yes, just try to take Tawaiin and see what happens to your economy you communist slave drivers! Buy American! http://www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Assuming (I hope, reasonably so) that Unity08 will be working from a clean sheet of paper, let me suggest the development of a set of first principles as an aid to setting priorities of the Unity movement. Let me also suggest that the first principal among equals should be to set our own house in order.
It is obvious that among the objectives of the Unity movement should be the restructuring of the American economic system to serve the needs of the American people rather than those of the large (and often multinational) corporations.
Therefore, let me suggest two objectives: first, the elimination of the trade deficit, and second, the elimination of deficit spending. When combined, their effect on the US economy will be staggering. Do the math:
A $600 billion trade deficit is economically indistinguishable from exporting jobs. The economic multiplier (typically on the order of 7) benefits our trading "partners" (parasites) instead of our own economy.
When that $600 billion deficit is elimnated, and the economic activity is internal, the multiplier creates approximately $4.2 TRILLION of additional GNP. The governmental rake-off at all levels is approximately 25% of this, or a little over $1 TRILLION in revenue.
This balances just about every budget on every level of US governmental structure.
Therefore, the call should be for policy of balanced trade and balanced budget. Tell our trading partners that we will trade with you, but we will no longer subsidize your economy at the expense of ours.
This is easy to accomplish: All it takes is a tarriff structure based upon trade deficits. In other words: the books will be made to balance. You can trade equally, or make up the difference in tarriffs. We really don't care which it is.
Achieving a balanced budget is easy, once the legislative will accedes to the will of the people: All it takes is legislation to surcharge taxes in years of deficit spending. This makes deficit spending political suicide, because the taxpayer is going to get a second tax bill from the IRS, one year later, representing his share of the deficit, and another the year after that, representing his share of interest on the deficit.
Balancing the books is ultimately in the interest of the American people. We cannot afford the long term consequences of unbalanced trade and unbalanced budgets. Neither can our children, nor can our children's children's children.
Yes, actually, "oil dependence" is less perjorative, less emotionally freighted, than "oil addiction". thanks for the suggestion.
Cartels. Cartels always eventually fail. When they do, the price crashes. The longest-lasting cartel is in diamonds and is controlled by a single company, DeBeers. It is very costly for them to maintain but they have the bankroll to do it. Other cartels have come and gone. There was one for tin, for example. The problem is that everyone cheats, and production is maintained at an artificially high level in most cartels as the cartel buys up the surplus to maintain the price. The OPEC oil cartel does not control all the oil, and so it is vulnerable to price fluctuations. The history of oil prices shows this. OPEC knows that if the price goes too high, things like the North Sea oilfield get developed, and the price then plummets. OPEC could not do much about the price of gas when it was $15, and it cannot do much about it now that it is $70. These days, many believe OPECS act is largely a sham, because countries are producing as much oil as they can and are striving to increase production to keep up with demand. If so, the free market is at work. Prices could go much higher, or much lower, depending upon supply and demand. I believe those in the media that claim a cartel controls prices at the present time are mistaken. Some have said we have reached or just passed world peak production in petroleum. The downside of the peak will provide very painful adjustments to those dependent on oil. Because it is clear that major adjustments will be necessary as the "Oil Age" (end of cheap oil) ends, it would be very beneficial to start preparing for it now.
Designed for Cheap Gas: America's major urban centers are designed around cheap gasoline. Many of the work centers are far from residences located in the outskirts, creating a commuter society. Cheaper housing is located farther from the workplace. The commute times are typically longer for those getting their first house, as the cheapest housing is located on newly developed land far from the urban center. They can either rent, or get an affordable house that is far from where they work. What will happen when the price of the commute becomes unaffordable for them? Well, they will probably carpool, or rely on public transportation. They will also vote for solutions that address their daily problem. This is why the gas price becomes a hot political topic. It is not the vacation in the family car. It is that commute every day. Where people live and work is not going to change as quickly as the price of gasoline. Advances such as the internet (telecommuting) will help mitigate, but only a small percentage of workers presently have this option.
Conspiracy Theories: The idea that a company or companies can surpress some unique "breakthrough" that will make energy free and easy seems to me lacking in common sense. As hard as it is to keep intellectual property from being pirated, can anyone seriously think that any invention worth millions, possibly billions, would not be put to use anywhere on the planet? This concept that there is an evil cartel (of oil companies, oil-producing countries, auto companies, what-have-you) has a primitive tribalist appeal, but it leads nowhere. Chevron is the leading producer of geothermal power. Toyota is not going to pass up a chance to make a buck by suppressing something that the oil companies would dislike. It is true that the automobile industry lobbied the federal government heavily to create the interstate highway system, and are very active in making sure that no 'highway funds' should be used for 'mass transit'. There are forces at work against change and adaptation, but they are obvious and for all to see.
The thousand mile per gallon vehicle, etc.: In fact, Consumer Reports (not widely believed to be part of conspiracy group) reports that the mileage offered by the Prius is overstated, and the mileage tests are going to be revised to better reflect what sort of mileage one actually obtains. I leave it open to any Prius owners who monitor their mileage to share with us what they actually obtain from these vehicles. You might be able to get 200 mpg on a moped. You do not need any gasoline to fuel a bicycle.
Monopoly in the 'fuel market': There is no monopoly in the fuel market. Fuel is freely traded. One of the contributing factors to the high price is speculation in fuel. One thing that needs to be done is to insure that this speculation is not so rampant that it results in calamity. The way to do this is to push for better regulation of these so-called derivitive funds, to make sure they are not borrowing excessive amounts of money to speculate the price upwards. There have been numerous scandals in this reagard, silver by the Hunt brothers, copper trading by a single speculator in Japan, the Orange County treasurer fiasco (egged on by the very untrustworthy Merril Lynch brokerage). There is some price manipulation going on, but you are barking up the wrong tree when you point to the refiners and producers, who sell on the open market at the best price they can obtain. It is the traders you need to watch. Until about 3 years ago, owning a refinery was a losing proposition. You need only look at the historic stock prices of the refiners to see this. You can check the annual reports to see the executives of the refineries were not paid shockingly high salaries either. No stock options in a non-growth industry like refining. Valero bought up a lot of these marginal operations, that were losing money even as the price of oil has risen. This was visionary of them, as consumption was approaching the production capacity of the industry, because no new refineries have been built for decades. Everyone wants the cheap gas, but they don't want newer, more efficient refineries. Some of these refineries are out on the Gulf coast and have not fully recovered from huricane damage. There are more hurricanes to come. You cannot just pick up and move a refinery. Look for further problems in refining capacity ahead.
Conserving fuel: Some would impose measures upon everyone, but I believe this is not politically viable. The market always seeks out ways to get around such impositions. For example, imposing mileage requirements on cars but not on trucks had the unforseen consequence of selling a lot more trucks. Imposing restrictions on trucks will probably drive people to buy more diesel cars. This may not be much of a benefit. Europe has had it share of grief with the prevalence of diesel autos, where this experiment has played out. Air quality has suffered. Loopholes emerge. The latest phoney benefit is one provided to auto producers to allow them to count engines that can run on blended fuels (they can use regular gasoline as well) as some sort of credit for producing better mileage cars. The big deception here is that ethanol-gasoline blends actually provide worse mileage, and produce more smog than the current existing blends. Add to this a large duty placed on imported ethanol, thanks to one particular midwestern committee chairman who proudly bragged how he would make sure no repeal of that duty would get out of *his* committee, and you can easily see this is a dead end. It is actually making gasoline cost more, as refineries struggle to obtain sufficient ethanol to make mandated blends. Most oil-importing countries have much much higher gasoline prices as a consequence of high taxes on fuel. People in those countries look at me with shock when I tell them how cheap gas is in America. Some oil producing countries have nearly-free gasoline (it is subsidized) but oil-importing countries do not. Americans are accustomed to their low fuel prices and proposing tax increases on fuel is probably political suicide.
I would suggest that we need to think about ways of redirecting money the government is already spending in ways that will lead to reductions in fuel consumption. This might include redirecting more highway funds into mass transit solutions that are sufficiently attractive that more people in outlying communities will find it preferable to drive short distances or walk to park and ride locations where they have transport that consumes less fuel. The keys are convenience, safety, comfort. I have not seen many systems that have all three of these. A successful system needs to be have speeds that are similar to what is obtainable in a car, good schedules, and probably different levels of service. A good system will not require people fearing for their safety, enduring long waits, or being annoyed by strangers. These are the protections their car can give them, at some increased risk of being hurt or killed in a crash, trapped in traffic, etc. In terms of saving gasoline, eletrified transport systems are probably preferable. They stink a lot less too. We must seek ways to tip the balance, rather than ramming our heads straight into a brick wall.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch
To get back to the original questions and essays... :-)
I agree that pricing oil high, the equivalent of $3.50/gallon for gasoline, is part of the answer. But I don't think it should happen immediately - it needs to be gradually phased in over 5 to 10 years.
Here's the thinking: we have made many trillions of economic decisions based on inexpensive oil over the last 20 years, since the bursting of the last oil bubble. Everything from where we live, what we drive... it's all been based on (relatively) inexpensive oil.
The problem is that the short-term price of oil does not take into consideration the long-term costs for America. Those include the support of autocratic regimes and Islamist movements, global warming and pollution.
We need to start making economic decisions based on an expectation that oil is expensive and is going to stay that way. If we knew that government policy was to gradually see oil prices rise the equivalent of $1.00/gallon of gas over the next five to ten years, we would all start to make different decisions when we buy cars, build houses, and on and on.
The pricing mechanism can work remarkably well in motivating inventors, corporations, government and individuals to "do the right thing" and reduce oil consumption. It works much, much better than government regulations, which tend to have loopholes created by special interests. But, if the prices lurch wildly it's difficult for all concerned to forecast what's the right economic decision. That's why a regular adjustment of federal carbon taxes... perhaps quarterly, to reflect commodity price changes... with a long-term goal of increasing the price, is the way to go.
I also strongly concur with the statement that government can and should exercise leadership as a consumer of energy. If you compel automobile companies to increase their mileage ratings they will whine and delay and work hard to wriggle out. But, if the government offers $billions in procurements for best-in-class energy consumption, attitudes will change!
A quick note on hybrids... I replaced my Chevy Blazer (SUV) with an equivalent sized (and safe) Toyota Highlander hybrid. The mileage *doubled* from about 14 MPG to 27 MPG. No sacrifice in safety. Yes, it was expensive and perhaps not justified with gas at $2.25 a gallon. But at $3.50? It looks like a much better deal.
In short, America needs to leverage American ingenuity and the market system to conquer oil dependency. Only by broadly changing decisions through higher energy prices will oil dependency be reduced.
I see many of us have many and differing thoughts about what is important and how to best effect change in our US Federal Government. In fact so many ideas, some more developed than others, are hard to assimilate at once.
I would like to suggest that there are a few “Lynch Pin” issues which make a cogent solution to our many and varied problems much more likely. In my mind "Renewable Energy" and "Immigration" both impact the whole in a manner that touches all the rest. Solutions to these two issues that are mindful of their over arching impact would give clarity to the solving of the rest. Let me explain.
It is true that “Bio Diesel” could only replace 20-30% of our oil dependence and might be a “dirtier” source of power at that. [That “Bio Diesel” (in it’s many forms) is “Current Carbon” probably makes this OK from a Global Warming perspective, but doesn’t make the pollution any easier or healthier for me to breathe.] However, a bank of Solar Cells (or other efficient Solar Collectors) on the roof of every home and building would not only power the home/business and charge batteries for night use (as well as cloudy days) but also sell power back to the Grid on most days. Such a System could charge your electric/gas vehicle over night as well. This Technology already exists and is implement able today. It’s benefits include: a reduction in the cost to Consumers of approximately their monthly Electricity Bill; a distinct reduction in Green House Gasses from both the Consumer Automobile and the Electric Generation Plant; and new jobs and opportunities in the development of this Base Technology. So we see how one solution can solve many problems at once.
Since this is such an elegant solution you may ask “Why don’t we already have it?” At the risk of sounding like a Conspiracy Theorist, the large corporations have, with the help of their Government Lackeys (both Democrat and Republican), squashed its development. If large corporations can’t control and profit from a technology they can and do see that it is not widely available.
I suggest that there are other solutions that impact more than one problem. Illegal Immigration is such an issue. It impacts both the spiraling cost of Education and Public Services (Welfare) as well as the problem of a living wage for lower skilled and unskilled labor. A cogent solution here is very necessary in deed.
Perhaps, after our vocal and sometimes passionate apologetics for our favorite issue, we could attempt to show how our proposed solution aides in the solving of other issues as well.
The comments I have read are, by and large, thoughtful and insightful. Most people here seem to have a relatively firm grasp on many of the issues we face in our political and economic systems. There is one aspect, however, that needs to be mentioned. That, my friends, is the absolute disdain that most Americans seem to have for our free election system. In nearly any contest you care to mention, we are usually elated when even 50% of the registered voters bother to even vote! Until this changes, we have little chance to really exert much influence on the political process that is dominated by the Democrat and Republican parties.
May I suggest that anyone who is interested in the survival of the united states do a google search on "North American Union".
In regards to this "union", it is interesting to see how our money is already looking like the mexican pesos. Perhaps the next step is that the paper "dollars" will be labled as "North American Union Note".
4theconstitution;
I am well aware of that idea and anyone who isnt needs to look into it pronto.
My lament is, when the EU was formed as a union between virtual economic equals, didnt the public have a say in its adoption as part of an overall referendum?
Here In NA our government is working towards a union between economic misfits while only offering us a token line of propoganda and leaving us no opportunity to voice our disapproval? And this is the beacon of democracy that we must spread throughout the world?