Big Oil to Congress: "LOLZ, we has ur moneys!"

plasticbathmonki

plasticbathmonki

CAGiversary!
Okay, I typically am as red-blooded American as it comes when defending the virtue of a free-market economy, but something really must be done about these ridiculous prices. To put it in context, trucker are considering going on strike over the cost of diesel, and how will I be able to lose a few bucks at GS if the shipments don't make it from the ports to the stores. Before I go on any further, I think it goes without saying that this isn't the President's fault, and anyone who says that it is needs to take some basic econ courses. So, on with my suggestions:

1) End all taxation of oil imports

Pro: immediate 14% drop in the price of oil
Con: Big oil pays more in taxes than the lower 50% payroll earners do in income taxes each year.

2) Open up strategic oil reserves

Pros: At least a short term price drop
Cons: It's a reserve, as in, you aren't supposed to use it 'cept in emergencies. And I like Alaska the way that it is.

3) End all foreign aid to OPEC member countries (which, BTW, paid on average $.17 per gallon in 2007), and use the money for the aggressive development of fuel cells.

Pros: It would be awesome.
Cons: The UN whines about us not doing our part, etc. etc.

Okay, that's my 2 cents. Discuss.
 
Stop giving them subsidies. No better way of forcing people to switch to an alternative fuel than by making the current fuel expensive as hell.
 
they are already making 40 billion a year and that doesnt help i dont think cutting them a tax break is going to help us that much
 
What we really need to do is use less oil, but that's not an easy task and if you tell people to conserve something they act like you're taking away their rights and freedoms and just raped their grandma.

I guess we need more incentives for buying more efficient cars? Anything to get more people to buy more fuel-efficient cars would be good.

As far as I can tell hydrogen extraction isn't nearly efficient enough to be used as a fuel right now and ethanol is just a stupid idea. Right now there just need to be a ton more electric and/or gas-electric hybrid cars until they can figure out a way to have a better fuel or just switch to electric shit entirely (which I guess would mean the power is mainly coming from coal and nuclear power plants, I dunno how much oil that would use...and that could create other problems).
 
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']Con: Big oil pays more in taxes than the lower 50% payroll earners do in income taxes each year.[/QUOTE]

Why is that a con? fuck 'em. If they don't want to pay those kinds of taxes, they can jolly well drop their profit margin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why is that a con? fuck 'em. If they don't want to pay those kinds of taxes, they can jolly well drop their profit margin.[/quote]

If I'm getting his point, I think he means it as a con as in the government wouldn't have that money.
 
[quote name='plasticbathmonki'] And I like Alaska the way that it is.[/quote]Have you ever been to Alaska? I haven't, but I still say we should be drilling the hell out of that state. As long as people aren't living in the area, why not? Who cares about animal conservation, my Taurus needs gas.
 
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']Okay, I typically am as red-blooded American as it comes when defending the virtue of a free-market economy, but something really must be done about these ridiculous prices.[/quote]
These are mutually exclusive positions being put forth.

I think it goes without saying that this isn't the President's fault, and anyone who says that it is needs to take some basic econ courses.
Click to expand...
Yea, who'da guessed that blowing big holes in a region by far the biggest supplier of an extremely limited natural resource would have economic consequences? Durrrrr, basic econ iz fun. And really, some admin officials cited cheap gas as a secondary reason for our hot sandbox action. I think it's fair at this point to realize that along with everything else they touch turning a deeper shade of poo, gas prices aren't too far from the tree.

1) End all taxation of oil imports
Click to expand...
Tax breaks for the biggest, most profitable companies in the world. This is going to end well.

Pro: immediate 14% drop in the price of oil
Click to expand...
lulz. A finite, wholly monopolized resource is going to drop overnight and stay there. All while the price of oil as a commodity continues to trade. Mmmmhmmmm.

2) Open up strategic oil reserves

Pros: At least a short term price drop
Cons: It's a reserve, as in, you aren't supposed to use it 'cept in emergencies. And I like Alaska the way that it is.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan, but I'd be willing to mull that one over.

3) End all foreign aid to OPEC member countries (which, BTW, paid on average $.17 per gallon in 2007), and use the money for the aggressive development of fuel cells.
Pros: It would be awesome.
Cons: The UN whines about us not doing our part, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
You should ask the president (who's fault this isn't) to end OPEC aid. He's a reasonable man, wholly outside the influence of petty things like commodity dealers. You should write him a sternly worded letter demanding that he consider it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I guess we need more incentives for buying more efficient cars? Anything to get more people to buy more fuel-efficient cars would be good.[/QUOTE]
I can afford to say this because I'm not a politician and I realize that any that did would be virtually crucified, but I think we should raise taxes on gasoline at least 20%. Sure, we'd all eat it, but we're eating it anyway.

Faith in the free market to save us from high energy prices, right? I say let's do it.
 
@speedracer,

Obviously, we disagree on a lot of things so let me address them one at a time:

1) Instability in the Middle East is the main reason for the hike in the cost of oil

Not likely the primary cause, since the price of crude has been rising well before the Neocons began beating the war drum. That being said, it definitely doesn't help the situation. If that logic applied, then Gulf War 1.0 would have caused oil to skyrocket well past today's costs since so much more of the oil production in the region was halted (it capped and quickly fell from $60, adjusted for inflation). The main reason is simple: more people are using oil. As countries like India and China and a mess of sub-Saharan nations keep firing up oil-burning power plants, prices will continue to rise. That is why Big Oil has the same profit margins for the last 2 decades.

2) Ending taxation on oil imports

The reason I mentioned this (and summarily put why we can't) is because after factoring in the cost of mining and extraction (about 50% of the cost of the barrel), taxes form the bulk of the cost of we pay at the pump. Do I believe tax cuts on commodities lower cost? Yes, because it's happened before. Carter did this in part of the deregulation process during the 1979 oil crisis. The following year, we saw a massive drop in the price of oil.

3) Writing a letter to the president

I tried. He sent me back a letter asking if I like planes and baseball with an autographed glossy.
 
What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.
 
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']The main reason is simple: more people are using oil. As countries like India and China and a mess of sub-Saharan nations keep firing up oil-burning power plants, prices will continue to rise.[/quote]
No disagreement, to a reasonable point.

That is why Big Oil has the same profit margins for the last 2 decades.
Click to expand...
I live in Houston dude. It's difficult to believe any numbers that would suggest that when they themselves are strutting about town crowing that they've never made more money. Just sayin.

2) Ending taxation on oil imports

The reason I mentioned this (and summarily put why we can't) is because after factoring in the cost of mining and extraction (about 50% of the cost of the barrel), taxes form the bulk of the cost of we pay at the pump. Do I believe tax cuts on commodities lower cost? Yes, because it's happened before. Carter did this in part of the deregulation process during the 1979 oil crisis. The following year, we saw a massive drop in the price of oil.
Click to expand...
1. I need to see your numbers.
2. 1980 was a long and interesting year. I'm curious if there weren't other factors there.

I tried. He sent me back a letter asking if I like planes and baseball with an autographed glossy.
Click to expand...
That was awesome. Good for a laugh for sure. :D
 
[quote name='plasticbathmonki']@
2) Ending taxation on oil imports
[/QUOTE]

Wait, you mean WE actually pay the taxes that the government imposes on business? No, no, that can't be right - they should just pay those higher taxes from their profits !
 
You're wrong about the president not being at fault, at least partially. Everyone knows that war in oil producing regions makes oil prices go up. It isn't that simple of course, oil investors play a part too. It is true that whenever there is active conflict in the middle east, oil prices go up. We certainly aren't helping to calm the middle east right now.
 
I like how Glen Beck said the higher revenues the oil companies are getting are actually a good thing. As it helps peoples retirement funds. Which is one of the most illogical comments I heard on April 1st.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You're wrong about the president not being at fault, at least partially. Everyone knows that war in oil producing regions makes oil prices go up. It isn't that simple of course, oil investors play a part too. It is true that whenever there is active conflict in the middle east, oil prices go up. We certainly aren't helping to calm the middle east right now.[/QUOTE]

Conflict in the Middle East, certainly not a new phenomenon, isn't the main cause of the gas price increases. The main cause is supply and demand, with the main problems being skyrocketing demand from China and India, plus our lack of extra refining capacity. Not to mention the fact that once people get used to paying $3 a gallon for gas the oil companies aren't going to say no to record profits.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.[/QUOTE]

Yes yes, this is the politician line, one that is wholly divorced from reality. Electric cars are great...except they still need electricity to run. Therefore, we need to generate electricity to run them. Now, you say, well, we will just open some new nuclear plants and get more solar and wind energy and everything will be hunky dory. News flash, even if we started building new nuclear plants today they probably wouldn't be up and running until near 2020. Solar and wind energy are a fraction of a percent of our total output. Even if we increased solar and wind energy production by 100x they would be a small, small portion of our needs.

So what I'm saying is not that improving solar and wind technology isn't good, or that we should give up on nuclear. I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.
 
The REAL answer is, we all need to start driving these:

IT_%28South_Park%3B_The_Entity%29.jpeg
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Conflict in the Middle East, certainly not a new phenomenon, isn't the main cause of the gas price increases. The main cause is supply and demand, with the main problems being skyrocketing demand from China and India, plus our lack of extra refining capacity. Not to mention the fact that once people get used to paying $3 a gallon for gas the oil companies aren't going to say no to record profits.[/quote]



yeah OPEC intentionally causing the supply to stay the same while demand goes up has nothing to do with the MAIN cause of the gas situation.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.[/QUOTE]
Wait, how did we get here? I don't understand the conclusion. We should open up ANWAR, more of Florida, etc, .... so we can *hopefully* knock a couple of cents off the cost of gasoline?
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Have you ever been to Alaska? I haven't, but I still say we should be drilling the hell out of that state. As long as people aren't living in the area, why not? Who cares about animal conservation, my Taurus needs gas.[/quote]

I hate you.

[quote name='fullmetalfan720']What we need to do is:
a: Start using electric cars.
b. Start opening more nuclear power plants, and start utilizing more wind, solar and other energies in areas where they are viable.[/quote]

Agreed, 100%!

About faith in new better technology on the verge: it's BS. Big Oil and car companies have been saying "We will have (insert alternative fuel here) in about 10 years" Since 1950. There is a huge tendency to massively overestimate technological advancement in this field. Watch. In ten years we will still be driving gas guzzlers. Don't beleive me, go watch the film Who killed the electric car? A: Big Oil, Big Auto, Government, California, and.....drumroll please........THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Conflict in the Middle East, certainly not a new phenomenon, isn't the main cause of the gas price increases. The main cause is supply and demand, with the main problems being skyrocketing demand from China and India, plus our lack of extra refining capacity. Not to mention the fact that once people get used to paying $3 a gallon for gas the oil companies aren't going to say no to record profits.




So, you're telling me that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with how much oil they produced? Iraq has produced less oil since the Iraq war started, and that helps to drive prices up.





Yes yes, this is the politician line, one that is wholly divorced from reality. Electric cars are great...except they still need electricity to run. Therefore, we need to generate electricity to run them. Now, you say, well, we will just open some new nuclear plants and get more solar and wind energy and everything will be hunky dory. News flash, even if we started building new nuclear plants today they probably wouldn't be up and running until near 2020. Solar and wind energy are a fraction of a percent of our total output. Even if we increased solar and wind energy production by 100x they would be a small, small portion of our needs.

So what I'm saying is not that improving solar and wind technology isn't good, or that we should give up on nuclear. I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.[/QUOTE]

First off, yes, nuclear power plants take a while to build. Adding new nuclear reactors to existing power plants also takes a while. However, the reality is, if we don't start using electric cars, we are
a. going to run out of oil fast. Some think we have already reached peak oil.
b. If we keep using oil, the price is going to go up, and the supply will go down, at worst causing another Great Depression and resource wars.
So, what we need to first do is, wean our country off of oil, and then when that is done, we can wean ourselves off of coal and use only nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energies. That could mean using more coal now, until the nuclear power plants are online.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Yes yes, this is the politician line, one that is wholly divorced from reality. Electric cars are great...except they still need electricity to run. Therefore, we need to generate electricity to run them. Now, you say, well, we will just open some new nuclear plants and get more solar and wind energy and everything will be hunky dory. News flash, even if we started building new nuclear plants today they probably wouldn't be up and running until near 2020. Solar and wind energy are a fraction of a percent of our total output. Even if we increased solar and wind energy production by 100x they would be a small, small portion of our needs.

So what I'm saying is not that improving solar and wind technology isn't good, or that we should give up on nuclear. I'm saying all energy sources are going to be needed until we can perfect the clean(er) ones. This means drilling in ANWR and off the coast of Florida, wind farms off Cape Cod, real biofuels (not ethanol which actually wastes energy). clean coal, the whole shebang. Not to mention getting serious about conservation. We need it all for some time, until technology leaps to where we need it to leap to and we can stop using finite fossil fuels altogether. But to pretend that we can just increase solar and wind power, switch to electric cars and everything will be peachy is to live in la-la land.[/quote]


And above is the lazy man's argument.

A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.

What is the other 10%? The godawful cross-country car trips. Hmm. How about buses, trains or ships? Some can run on biofuel (such as ethanol from sugar cane instead of corn or diesel from waste grease) in addition to bigger batteries and water currents. So, electric cars are practical.

Oh, but how to power those electric cars? It takes $10,000 and 1,000 square feet of solar cells with today's technology to keep an electric car humming. Right now, the US spends $1,000 per person to stay in the Middle East.

After 10 years, the solar cells would be paid for. The other 10 years of service from the solar cells would be effectively FREE!

No new coal plants, no new nuclear plants, no whining assholes about wind turbines obstructing views or killing birds.

Even if solar cells couldn't be produced fast enough for a few years, overnight charging of electric cars would solve most of the power grid concerns.

We don't use electric cars because we're lazy and brainwashed by Big Oil and car companies that we couldn't survive without their cars.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.

What is the other 10%? The godawful cross-country car trips. Hmm. How about buses, trains or ships? Some can run on biofuel (such as ethanol from sugar cane instead of corn or diesel from waste grease) in addition to bigger batteries and water currents. So, electric cars are practical.

Oh, but how to power those electric cars? It takes $10,000 and 1,000 square feet of solar cells with today's technology to keep an electric car humming. Right now, the US spends $1,000 per person to stay in the Middle East.

After 10 years, the solar cells would be paid for. The other 10 years of service from the solar cells would be effectively FREE!

No new coal plants, no new nuclear plants, no whining assholes about wind turbines obstructing views or killing birds.

Even if solar cells couldn't be produced fast enough for a few years, overnight charging of electric cars would solve most of the power grid concerns.

We don't use electric cars because we're lazy and brainwashed by Big Oil and car companies that we couldn't survive without their cars.[/quote]

QFMFT! http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
 
People give out the same shitty reasons why electric cars won't work.

1. They're expensive.

Yes, upfront. However, their maintenance and operating costs are lower and makes it cheaper than a gas guzzler.

2. They're unreliable.

No, not in the last 10 years. The electric RAV4s are still humming along after 200K miles.

3. Range is too short.

Only if you drive more than 100 miles a day every day.

4. They push pollution upstream.

Yes, if you get power from a coal fired plant instead of solar panels or wind turbines. Also, the coal fired plant must generate more pollution to power the car than gasoline would create from powering a comparative car.

...

Please add the rest of the reasons why electric cars are so impractical. Don't worry, they'll be crushed.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
Please add the rest of the reasons why electric cars are so impractical. Don't worry, they'll be crushed.[/quote]

:shock: Hot damn! With some attitude that time, I like it! :applause:
 
Does it boil down to the same reasoning when people bemoan professional sports players' salaries?

"They make too much money!"
"Then stop watching them on TV, buying tickets and merchandise."

"Gas is too expensive!"
"Only because you continue to buy it regardless of the cost."
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yeah OPEC intentionally causing the supply to stay the same while demand goes up has nothing to do with the MAIN cause of the gas situation.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what I said, supply and demand? OPEC doesn't change its production due to conflict in the Middle East; there has been conflict in the Middle East since oil became a valuable commodity.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wait, how did we get here? I don't understand the conclusion. We should open up ANWAR, more of Florida, etc, .... so we can *hopefully* knock a couple of cents off the cost of gasoline?[/QUOTE]

Not at all, we should open these up plus all the rest to ensure that our economy is not crippled by energy costs. ANWR and continental shelf drilling by themselves won't solve all our problems, but realistically they are part of what we are going to need to keep energy costs from skyrocketing (more than they already have).
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']First off, yes, nuclear power plants take a while to build. Adding new nuclear reactors to existing power plants also takes a while. However, the reality is, if we don't start using electric cars, we are
a. going to run out of oil fast. Some think we have already reached peak oil.
b. If we keep using oil, the price is going to go up, and the supply will go down, at worst causing another Great Depression and resource wars.
So, what we need to first do is, wean our country off of oil, and then when that is done, we can wean ourselves off of coal and use only nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energies. That could mean using more coal now, until the nuclear power plants are online.[/QUOTE]

I think you are agreeing with me. I am not saying don't develop electric cars; of course we should be developing them. I'm just saying that this is the easy part of the solution, and that we need the hard parts too if it is to work.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And above is the lazy man's argument.

A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.[/QUOTE]

I think, again, you are misunderstanding me. The real lazy argument is to say let's just increase solar and wind and we'll be great next year. It is going to take time to develop the technologies that allow us to have sustainable energy resources. To get us to that time, yes, we are going to have to use oil/gas/coal/nuclear if we don't want our economy and standard of living destroyed - including the money to develop renewable technologies.
 
[quote name='daroga']Does it boil down to the same reasoning when people bemoan professional sports players' salaries?

"They make too much money!"
"Then stop watching them on TV, buying tickets and merchandise."

"Gas is too expensive!"
"Only because you continue to buy it regardless of the cost."[/quote]

It's a bit different, because for most people, getting to work is a necessity. Watch sports is purely entertainment. I like sports and I watch games when I can for free, but I refuse to buy season tickets or merchandise to support the rising salaries. I'm happy with that arrangement.

With gas, I don't really see an alternative. Public transit sucks in LA and pretty much only illegal aliens and transients use it... plus I'd have to walk 10-15 minutes to a bus stop and my whole trip length would increase by a factor of 2 or 3. I'd love to not show up at work with the excuse being: "gas is to expensive, so I decided not to buy it." But, I doubt that would fly... And no, I don't feel like walking 5 - 10 miles to work.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yeah OPEC intentionally causing the supply to stay the same while demand goes up has nothing to do with the MAIN cause of the gas situation.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what I said, supply and demand? OPEC doesn't change its production due to conflict in the Middle East; there has been conflict in the Middle East since oil became a valuable commodity.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wait, how did we get here? I don't understand the conclusion. We should open up ANWAR, more of Florida, etc, .... so we can *hopefully* knock a couple of cents off the cost of gasoline?[/QUOTE]

Not at all, we should open these up plus all the rest to ensure that our economy is not crippled by energy costs. ANWR and continental shelf drilling by themselves won't solve all our problems, but realistically they are part of what we are going to need to keep energy costs from skyrocketing (more than they already have).
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']First off, yes, nuclear power plants take a while to build. Adding new nuclear reactors to existing power plants also takes a while. However, the reality is, if we don't start using electric cars, we are
a. going to run out of oil fast. Some think we have already reached peak oil.
b. If we keep using oil, the price is going to go up, and the supply will go down, at worst causing another Great Depression and resource wars.
So, what we need to first do is, wean our country off of oil, and then when that is done, we can wean ourselves off of coal and use only nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower, and other alternative energies. That could mean using more coal now, until the nuclear power plants are online.[/QUOTE]

I think you are agreeing with me. I am not saying don't develop electric cars; of course we should be developing them. I'm just saying that this is the easy part of the solution, and that we need the hard parts too if it is to work.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And above is the lazy man's argument.

A crappy electric car can go 40 miles between charges. An expensive electric car can go 200+ miles between charges. Even if only crappy electric cars existed, that would satisfy 90% of commuters' daily driving needs.[/QUOTE]

I think, again, you are misunderstanding me. The real lazy argument is to say let's just increase solar and wind and we'll be great next year. It is going to take time to develop the technologies that allow us to have sustainable energy resources. To get us to that time, yes, we are going to have to use oil/gas/coal/nuclear if we don't want our economy and standard of living destroyed - including the money to develop renewable technologies.
 
[quote name='daroga']Does it boil down to the same reasoning when people bemoan professional sports players' salaries?

"They make too much money!"
"Then stop watching them on TV, buying tickets and merchandise."

"Gas is too expensive!"
"Only because you continue to buy it regardless of the cost."[/quote]

It's a bit different, because for most people, getting to work is a necessity. Watch sports is purely entertainment. I like sports and I watch games when I can for free, but I refuse to buy season tickets or merchandise to support the rising salaries. I'm happy with that arrangement.

With gas, I don't really see an alternative. Public transit sucks in LA and pretty much only illegal aliens and transients use it... plus I'd have to walk 10-15 minutes to a bus stop and my whole trip length would increase by a factor of 2 or 3. I'd love to not show up at work with the excuse being: "gas is to expensive, so I decided not to buy it." But, I doubt that would fly... And no, I don't feel like walking 5 - 10 miles to work.
 
There is an enormous difference between federal money spent on a war and federal money spent on subsidizing a global technology -- the former stays here, the latter does not.

As a very, very crass example, $1,000 for Iraq may mean $900 stays in our economy (as soldier pay, domestic military contracts, etc) and $100 does not (foreign contracts), where-as $1,000 for an electric car subsidy may mean $600 for Asian car companies, $200 for European car companies and $200 for American car companies (and a portion of that $200 goes to outsourced part manufacture).

I'm not saying these numbers are realistic, at all, but you can't compare the actual cost of a subsidy to military expense, since "cost" for federal action involves much more than just how much money leaves Washington -- you have to take into consideration how much of that will come back.

[quote name='BigT']5 - 10 miles to work.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? 5 - 10 miles and you're all out of options because you don't like public transportation? Bike.

In Seattle tons of people bike 15+ miles, and the majority of people I know who commute 5 miles or less do so by bike. My 63 year old law professor bikes 8 miles to and from campus every day -- I'm pretty sure you can handle it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think, again, you are misunderstanding me. [/quote]

In one response, you're arguing we need to aggressively develop domestic oil resources. In another response, you're arguing the development of the electric car is easy of the way to go. It seems like you're trying to please everybody. Don't worry if you stomp on some toes. We're all adults here.

[quote name='elprincipe']The real lazy argument is to say let's just increase solar and wind and we'll be great next year. [/quote]

Next year? No. 4 years to make the US completely independent on oil import. 4 more years to make the US completely independent of almost all oil. Does my solution have to save the country in 6 months? ANWR won't help us for at least 10 years once exploration is approved.

[quote name='elprincipe']It is going to take time to develop the technologies that allow us to have sustainable energy resources. [/quote]

No, the technologies I am citing already exist. Solar panels fueling electric cars already have enough efficiency to be competitive with a gas guzzler BEFORE taking into account how much money must be wasted overseas to maintain the trickle of gasoline.

[quote name='elprincipe']To get us to that time, yes, we are going to have to use oil/gas/coal/nuclear if we don't want our economy and standard of living destroyed - including the money to develop renewable technologies.[/quote]

Bernanke much? Our economy and standard of living are on the decline. The massive amounts of money pissed away down Iraq are to blame.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No, the technologies I am citing already exist. Solar panels fueling electric cars already have enough efficiency to be competitive with a gas guzzler BEFORE taking into account how much money must be wasted overseas to maintain the trickle of gasoline.[/QUOTE]

Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Our economy and standard of living are on the decline. The massive amounts of money pissed away down Iraq are to blame.[/QUOTE]

This, again, makes me feel like you don't really understand the difference between money kept domestic and money sent away.

For military funding, Americans are paid, American jobs are created and Americans use it to buy American products, paying American taxes, eventually going full circle. The money leaves Washington and a large portion of it comes back to Washington.

The same, of course, can not be said about a large subsidy for the auto industry, in which a very large portion of it would go to foreign companies, creating jobs in foreign countries, where they pay foreign taxes.


It should be noted that I'm an Earth-loving liberal -- I definitely don't defend the energy industry (or war efforts), but our economy is vital to every aspect of our life, and your proposition has a dreadful effect on it.
 
I find it seriously hard to believe that any plan would make us almost completely independent of oil in under 30 years considering a large portion of the population still drives cars that are 20+ years old. Until you can go by the local mechanic shop and pick up an electric car that someone didn't pay the repair bill for, we will still need lots of regular unleaded.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.[/quote]


it would save us money in many fronts. First off it could be developed by a US company which would bring a ton of cash over here. Secondly it would stop the idiotic idea that biofeuls are the answer. This would have farmers just use their fields for food instead of trying to make a buck off the ethanol craze. This would lower the price of food greatly. Finally the long term health costs would be significant. The pollution produced from cars has serious long term effects on people. Cutting down those emissions to nill can save in the long term health costs, especially when there is some sort of Socialized Medicine in effect.

So i think the money you complain would go to subsidies would be considered a long term investment that would payoff
 
[quote name='k0kRoach']I find it seriously hard to believe that any plan would make us almost completely independent of oil in under 30 years considering a large portion of the population still drives cars that are 20+ years old. [/quote]

My last 4 cars over the last 10 years were all less than 20 years old. What great percentage of Americans drive 20+ year old cars on a daily basis? 1%? 0.05%? Sure, I've seen vintage cars (with historic plates) every few weekends on the interstate. In any parking lot, they're an anomaly.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']My last 4 cars over the last 10 years were all less than 20 years old. What great percentage of Americans drive 20+ year old cars on a daily basis? 1%? 0.05%? Sure, I've seen vintage cars (with historic plates) every few weekends on the interstate. In any parking lot, they're an anomaly.[/quote]I'd say you're living in a decently affluent area then. Around us, it's the newer cars that are the exception. Perhaps not 20 years old, but to see a car that is 10-15 years old is far and away the norm.

"Legacy" cars and people who simply can't afford a new car means it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to say we'll be completely off oil for a very long time. We can certainly do things to reduce our oil consumption, but we're not ever going to go cold turkey.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Solar powered *and* electric? And what's the MSRP? Driving on rainbows and sunshine is marvelous until you consider the economic plausibility.

The only way to make your wondercar viable is through enormous government subsidies and/or rebates. Either way, hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, would leave our nation, which would be absolutely devastating. This single move would throw us into a depression from which we may not be able to recover -- that's not hyperbolic, it seriously would be that devastating.
[/quote]

Are you describing electric cars or the last five years of making Iraq a democracy?

But seriously...

The average car payment is $378 over 63 months. http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2267.shtml
They're pissing away $4500 on car payments every year. They can afford a $10K conversion if the electric car is a more reliable product than a gas guzzler. (This is where you launch your first counterargument that will fail.)

The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. The average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year today. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/efficiency/savingenergy.html
Using the best gas price I saw yesterday (3.11 per gallon), that $1555 per year if gas prices go no higher.
Pushing a car for 1 hour requires 10-15kWh at a speed of 60mph. That's 2000-3000kWh per year. At the current cost of coal delivered power (10 cents per kWh), that's $200-$300 per year if coal prices go no higher. BTW, coal is a product with enough domestic reserves that invading a foreign country isn't required. Then again, Kentucky could have WMDs.
At the current and expensive cost of solar panel delivered power (40 cents per kWh), that's $800-$1200 per year unless the sun stops shining or a supervolcano such as Toba blocks out the sun. (This is where you launch your second counterargument that will fail.)

[quote name='Koggit']
This, again, makes me feel like you don't really understand the difference between money kept domestic and money sent away.

For military funding, Americans are paid, American jobs are created and Americans use it to buy American products, paying American taxes, eventually going full circle. The money leaves Washington and a large portion of it comes back to Washington.

The same, of course, can not be said about a large subsidy for the auto industry, in which a very large portion of it would go to foreign companies, creating jobs in foreign countries, where they pay foreign taxes.


It should be noted that I'm an Earth-loving liberal -- I definitely don't defend the energy industry (or war efforts), but our economy is vital to every aspect of our life, and your proposition has a dreadful effect on it.[/quote]

A massive conversion to electric cars would create American jobs. Jobs to assembly batteries with current technology and distribute them locally. Another country could manufacture the batteries, but they would lose a significant amount of profitability transporting heavy batteries thousands of miles. Jobs to convert the crap Detroit churns out into electric. An electric car takes 80 man hours to complete. There are 240 million cars out there. That's 19.2 billion man hours of work to be completed that can't be shipped overseas. Are people going to ship their cars out of the country to be converted OR have it done locally?

Considering the lifespan of batteries and cars in general, the conversion has a built in percentage of renewal business.
 
[quote name='daroga']I'd say you're living in a decently affluent area then. Around us, it's the newer cars that are the exception. Perhaps not 20 years old, but to see a car that is 10-15 years old is far and away the norm.

"Legacy" cars and people who simply can't afford a new car means it's a pie-in-the-sky dream to say we'll be completely off oil for a very long time. We can certainly do things to reduce our oil consumption, but we're not ever going to go cold turkey.[/quote]

There's a trailer park less than a mile from where I currently live.

I can see 10 years old because I drive a 97 Sable and the wife drives a 99 Sable. 20 years is bullshit.

We don't have to go off oil tomorrow. For vehicular travel purposes only... I can get the country off of oil imports in 4 years and completely off of oil in 8 years. Do you want the math?

If somebody simply must continue driving a gas guzzler, there will be oil. Of course, there are probably still leisure suits available for purchase.

The idea isn't wand and fairy godmother. It is hard work for several years that can't be outsourced.
 
There is an enormous difference between federal money spent on a war and federal money spent on subsidizing a global technology -- the former stays here, the latter does not.

As a very, very crass example, $1,000 for Iraq may mean $900 stays in our economy (as soldier pay, domestic military contracts, etc) and $100 does not (foreign contracts), where-as $1,000 for an electric car subsidy may mean $600 for Asian car companies, $200 for European car companies and $200 for American car companies (and a portion of that $200 goes to outsourced part manufacture).

I'm not saying these numbers are realistic, at all, but you can't compare the actual cost of a subsidy to military expense, since "cost" for federal action involves much more than just how much money leaves Washington -- you have to take into consideration how much of that will come back.

[quote name='BigT']5 - 10 miles to work.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? 5 - 10 miles and you're all out of options because you don't like public transportation? Bike.

In Seattle tons of people bike 15+ miles, and the majority of people I know who commute 5 miles or less do so by bike. My 63 year old law professor bikes 8 miles to and from campus every day -- I'm pretty sure you can handle it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think, again, you are misunderstanding me. [/quote]

In one response, you're arguing we need to aggressively develop domestic oil resources. In another response, you're arguing the development of the electric car is easy of the way to go. It seems like you're trying to please everybody. Don't worry if you stomp on some toes. We're all adults here.

[quote name='elprincipe']The real lazy argument is to say let's just increase solar and wind and we'll be great next year. [/quote]

Next year? No. 4 years to make the US completely independent on oil import. 4 more years to make the US completely independent of almost all oil. Does my solution have to save the country in 6 months? ANWR won't help us for at least 10 years once exploration is approved.

[quote name='elprincipe']It is going to take time to develop the technologies that allow us to have sustainable energy resources. [/quote]

No, the technologies I am citing already exist. Solar panels fueling electric cars already have enough efficiency to be competitive with a gas guzzler BEFORE taking into account how much money must be wasted overseas to maintain the trickle of gasoline.

[quote name='elprincipe']To get us to that time, yes, we are going to have to use oil/gas/coal/nuclear if we don't want our economy and standard of living destroyed - including the money to develop renewable technologies.[/quote]

Bernanke much? Our economy and standard of living are on the decline. The massive amounts of money pissed away down Iraq are to blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top