W Urges Oil Conservation

[Nbadan]

NYT: Bush Urges Conservation as Retail Gas Prices Rise
By VIKAS BAJAJ
Published: September 26, 2005



President Bush called on the Americans today to conserve gasoline and avoid non-essential driving as the average national prices for retail gasoline climbed higher for the first time since they peaked over the Labor Day weekend.

The president's remarks appeared to reflect concerns that gasoline supplies may remain tight and prices will rise further, even as the energy industry and analysts were breathing a sigh of relief over the limited scope of damage at Texas refineries from Hurricane Rita.

"We can all pitch in by being better conservers," Mr. Bush said after being briefed on the hurricanes' impact on the energy industry at the Energy Department. "People just need to recognize that these storms have caused disruptions." In addition to urging consumers to cut back to ease the pain of the current supply shortages, he said federal employees should use carpool and public transport and not take non-essential trips.

Retail price increases were most acute in Texas, the Gulf Coast and Southeast, areas closest to and most dependent on oil refineries in or near the hurricane's path. Nationwide, the average price for regular unleaded gasoline was $2.80 a gallon today, up from $2.748 the day before, according to the Oil Price Information Service.

The president also said the nation needed to relax regulations on the construction of new oil refineries. A new refinery has not been built in the United States in almost 30 years, although companies have expanded capacity at existing plants and are running them closer to 100 percent capacity....

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/business/26cnd-gas.html?ei=5094&en=53f023b3f0228c1e&hp=&ex=1127793600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1127775603-jQYWlCZQ2F8jM9CcPWbr+Q)

I guess building new refineries with record profits oil companies are soaking from us is too much to ask for from W's buddies, and requiring auto-makers to increase fuel efficiency is blasphamy. Forget about it!

[jochhejaam]

NYT: Bush Urges Conservation as Retail Gas Prices Rise
By VIKAS BAJAJ
Published: September 26, 2005




NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/business/26cnd-gas.html?ei=5094&en=53f023b3f0228c1e&hp=&ex=1127793600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1127775603-jQYWlCZQ2F8jM9CcPWbr+Q)

I guess building new refineries with record profits oil companies are soaking from us is too much to ask for from W's buddies, and requiring auto-makers to increase fuel efficiency is blasphamy. Forget about it!


Nbadan, Environmental Activism (NIMBY = not in my backyard) is deterring the oil companies from building new refineries;
Rough cost estimate for a new refinery is 4 to 6 billion.

But getting an oil refinery built is next to impossible, hence the 30-year construction drought. There will always be environmental activists who fight any new proposed refinery, regardless of where it might be located and how environmentally safe it is. And our environmental rules give them the upper hand.

The environmental impact-report process mobilizes the "not in my back yard" elements to oppose any proposed refinery, but it does not mobilize people or groups who are looking at national energy needs. You wind up with a very lopsided discussion where potential problems are thoroughly and perhaps overly represented, but the only group pointing out the benefits of the refinery is the "evil" oil company asking to build it - even though every automobile driver would benefit.

Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project.

President Bush recently signed a new energy bill that tries to make it easier to build new oil refineries, especially in areas with high unemployment – where the new jobs would likely be welcome. And yet, special-interest groups decried the provision as an environmental and public health injustice, arguing that these communities won't want refineries but won't have the political power to fight them off.

The opposition to building new refineries ignores the dramatic technological improvements that have been made since an oil refinery was last constructed here in 1976. New, clean refineries emit far less pollution than older refineries, with new scrubbers and design changes that dramatically reduce sulfur and other emissions. And at the same time our ability to model and map emission characteristics and distribution lets us choose the best locations for new facilities – where they will have the least possible impact on people and the environment.

Even as gas prices have soared beyond $2.50 per gallon in many parts of the country, Americans have not stopped driving. We might tighten our budgets elsewhere to make up for the added expenses, but we show no signs of giving up our cars. At some point, we need to admit our dependence on gasoline and add the capacity and refineries that will help lower gas prices.

Our environmental review process needs to embrace local concerns and impacts, but it can't facilitate the "not in my back yard" resistance that completely derails plans for any new refineries.

Hurricane Katrina has revealed an ominous weakness in our energy policy. If we don't start building refineries and adding capacity to handle our growing gas needs, it won't take a natural disaster to send gas prices soaring even higher.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml

[Vashner]

Oil Conservation? Or refined gasoline...

Big difference.. we have no crude shortage.. just finished product..

[Nbadan]

I understand that tough enviromental regulations makes it difficult to build new refineries domestically, but my question is why we don't build them in Mexico or Central America were enviroment concerns are lower, or graft is higher, and the economies of the countries willing to build these new cleaner refineries for the U.S. would benefit tremendously? The Oil companies are raking in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits by keeping the system status quo. They have little incentive to increase refining capacity dramatically. This is why we need a strong Federal Government.

[SpursWoman]

And then complain that all of our jobs are going overseas? Or screwing the Mexicans and Central Americans of their environment so greedy Americans can drive their monster SUV's?

No matter how strong the Federal Government is, you'll always have the Barbara's and the human rights activists and environmentalists fighting every step of the way. If by your definition of a strong Federal Government is to just railroad over these people, why not just railroad the ones here to build more in the US and keep the freight costs of moving refined oil products to a minimum?

I mean damn, the leader or whatever of OPEC is chomping at the bit to build 2 refineries here already....

[SpursWoman]

Where is Mr. Dictionary I don't think "conserve" is in the english dictionary.

Asking excessive and wasteful americans to conserve a everyday product is a total waste of air. Conserve that shrub.


Do you guys have any idea how ridiculous that sounds when you say that? It's not even clever.

And why is a call for conserving resources a partisan issue? As far as I can tell the outrageous prices are effecting the hardcore, the moderate, and the I really don't GAF's.

I've cut down on my driving by at least half and have been very stingy with electricity used in my house. And I'm not going to lie...a big factor is of the hellacious CPS & gas bills that are doing it, and maybe a little goodness in my heart.

[IcemanCometh]

It certainly worked for Carter

[spurster]

It's been quite a year so far. BushCo has discovered poor people in the US and energy conservation.

[SpursWoman]

So there's hope yet... :)

[Hook Dem]

Do you guys have any idea how ridiculous that sounds when you say that? It's not even clever.

And why is a call for conserving resources a partisan issue? As far as I can tell the outrageous prices are effecting the hardcore, the moderate, and the I really don't GAF's.

I've cut down on my driving by at least half and have been very stingy with electricity used in my house. And I'm not going to lie...a big factor is of the hellacious CPS & gas bills that are doing it, and maybe a little goodness in my heart.
Couldn't agree more with this!

[boutons]

"And why is a call for conserving resources a partisan issue"

because the Repubs have done FUCK ALL in 5 years about advancing conservation, while subsidizing exploration to continue providing high-levels of consumption, which is the "Repub National Engery Policy", cooked up in secret, hidden behind Executive Privilege, by dickhead and his cronies in the energy sector. Do you really think such a national energy policy has conservation as its priority? How about how to maximize, well hidden of course, the windfall profits of the the energy sector as a national energy policy?

And remember the recent bill that gave the energy companies, already drowing in windfall profits (out of YOUR pocket) $15B in energy research subsidies. That's $15B that we'll never hear from again. A flat-out tax-free gift to the energy industry.

dubya's half-assed call for conservaton is demogoguery reacting superficially to the consumer complaints about high gas prices. He doesn't really give a fuck, he's just sounding like he does to try to hold on to his base. It's the same smoke-and-mirrors fakery he used when trying to show "hands on" during the Rita, after he fucked up Katrina. fucking liars, all of them.

Note that dubya did NOT yestrerday call on his buddies in the refineries to roll back their fucking 255% increase in wholesale gasoline price in one year. See the graphic I posted here yesterday showing the %age price increase at each level of pertroleum chain, from the well-head to the gas pump.

[SpursWoman]

Fuck moving forward, then....we should all just continue living in the past. :rolleyes

[boutons]

with these Repub sons-of-bitches, the forward is just like the past.

See dubya appointing an incompetent crony to run INS,
see dubya appointing incompetent, inexperienced KR to run the re-construction,
even after dubya got burned by Allbaugh/Brown incompetents.

It's Repub business as usual, taking care of themselves, and the country sucks hind tit.

[Useruser666]

Jeez Boutons, do you ever get tired of yelling at the top of your lungs? If Bush would come out tomorrow and say everything he ever did was wrong and Boutons was right, you would come in here and post that he was an idiot, scum, and wrong!

[Vashner]

with these Repub sons-of-bitches, the forward is just like the past.

See dubya appointing an incompetent crony to run INS,
see dubya appointing incompetent, inexperienced KR to run the re-construction,
even after dubya got burned by Allbaugh/Brown incompetents.

It's Repub business as usual, taking care of themselves, and the country sucks hind tit.
1. There is no such thing as INS.. it was disbanded after 911 due to what the liberals on the 911 panel wanted .. like splitting FEMA into DHS..

President did not want DHS.. he was forced to take it from the 911 panel.

2. KR? There is not reconstruction problem ..

3. Brownie sucked but not as much as the local democrats.

4. This is not really related to gas conservation request made for the storm events it's just bullshit because you nothing on the subject of this post.

[Vashner]

"And why is a call for conserving resources a partisan issue"

because the Repubs have done FUCK ALL in 5 years about advancing conservation, while subsidizing exploration to continue providing high-levels of consumption, which is the "Repub National Engery Policy", cooked up in secret, hidden behind Executive Privilege, by dickhead and his cronies in the energy sector. Do you really think such a national energy policy has conservation as its priority? How about how to maximize, well hidden of course, the windfall profits of the the energy sector as a national energy policy?

And remember the recent bill that gave the energy companies, already drowing in windfall profits (out of YOUR pocket) $15B in energy research subsidies. That's $15B that we'll never hear from again. A flat-out tax-free gift to the energy industry.

dubya's half-assed call for conservaton is demogoguery reacting superficially to the consumer complaints about high gas prices. He doesn't really give a fuck, he's just sounding like he does to try to hold on to his base. It's the same smoke-and-mirrors fakery he used when trying to show "hands on" during the Rita, after he fucked up Katrina. fucking liars, all of them.

Note that dubya did NOT yestrerday call on his buddies in the refineries to roll back their fucking 255% increase in wholesale gasoline price in one year. See the graphic I posted here yesterday showing the %age price increase at each level of pertroleum chain, from the well-head to the gas pump.

Fuck all that hot air..

Listen the fuck up ... Democrats want to give you a BETTER economy than GW bush.. that means DEMOCrats want a higher GDP% per year ..

THAT Means a hell of a lot more fossil fuel burning..

so unless y ou can get kerry and hillary to promise to cool off the economy not grow it that the lefties are talking out there ass...

[boutons]

user, I'm not yelling, IGNORE me.

[JoeChalupa]

All I know is that the oil companies are making huge profits, not that there is anything wrong with making a profit but I heard that...Exxon or one of the other major oil companies reported a 35% increase in profits over the same time last year.

Now, I'm no economic major but why would companies that are all reporting huge profits be given tax breaks worth billions?

And yeah I hear them say they need it to research for new fuel alternatives and such but damn!! Can I get a tax break, even though I'm not rich, so that I may research alternative fuel methods too!?
Can somebody explain that to me.....like I'm a 4 year old?

[SpursWoman]

It quit being clever upon it's 554,568,369,741,852,456,789th use. Well, that and the fact that unless you're talking about "a beverage made from fruit juice, sugar, and a liquor such as rum or brandy," the word "shrub" means the exact same thing as bush. So someone came up with an insult by using a thesaurus? I guess that could be considered clever...although most of us learned to do that by at least the 3rd grade.

No one necessarily has to change their entire lifestyle or make drastic changes...if everyone did at least a little ... as a whole it could make a significant difference.

[Neuromancer]

Fuck moving forward, then....we should all just continue living in the past. :rolleyes


Who controls the past now controls the future.
Who controls the present now controls the past.

[SpursWoman]

Wow you sure are comfortable attacking me.

The sad thing is for the most part I agree with you and sorry if first thing in the morning my humor isn't up to snuff.


The sad thing? It's okay, I'm a very well educated person and I have pretty good common sense....it's okay to agree with me. I don't think what I said was unreasonable at all. :lol

[Shelly]

Fuck moving forward, then....we should all just continue living in the past. :rolleyes

That would explain why people are still sporting mullets.

[SpursWoman]

That would explain why people are still sporting mullets.


I didn't think there could possibly be an explanation for that... :wow :lol

[Shelly]

I didn't think there could possibly be an explanation for that... :wow :lol

True...when I was at Target (natch!) this KID had one that was down to his ass. I was trying to figure out a way to nonchalantly take his picture :lol

Um..so yeah..If it ever cooled down here, I'd have every fricking window in my house open to conserve energy. It amazes me how many people never open their windows when it's nice out. And if my kids didn't get a new glass every fricking time they get a drink of water, I'd be running the dishwasher less.

[SpursWoman]

Um..so yeah..If it ever cooled down here, I'd have every fricking window in my house open to conserve energy. It amazes me how many people never open their windows when it's nice out. And if my kids didn't get a new glass every fricking time they get a drink of water, I'd be running the dishwasher less.

:lmao @ the inconspicuous picture ... I'm always trying to do that. At my daughter's softball league they have an umpire that looks uncannily like Manny...I've tried so hard to get his picture w/o his mask on. :lol


I love opening the windows...I live on a pretty nice hill so it gets really breezy. It doesn't seem like it's ever going to be time for that though... :depressed

[Shelly]

:lmao I love having a camera phone for that reason!

Seriously! People leave their air on all year round. Don't they want to get 6 months of cooking smells, etc. out of their house?

My house faces directly north so it gets pretty gusty in here sometimes.

[JoeChalupa]

I always open up the windows to get the funk out.

[Nbadan]

W leads by example.....(NOT!)


McClellan said Tuesday the White House planned to take other steps to conserve energy and that orders were issued to staff asking them to restrict nonessential travel and to reduce use of electricity by shutting off printers, fax machines and lights.

The White House said it was reducing the size of the presidential motorcade, which numbered about a dozen vehicles in Beaumont but can run more than 20 vehicles for some trips.

COST SHARPLY UP TO RUN AIR FORCE ONE

But one of the heftiest costs of presidential travel entails flying Air Force One, a reconfigured Boeing 747-200B. Bush already has made stops in Mississippi, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana, including four in New Orleans, the low-lying city flooded by Katrina.

While precise costs were not available, Maj. Brenda Campbell, an Air Force spokeswoman at the Pentagon, said that as of a month ago, before Katrina struck, fuel expenses for the biggest airplane of the Air Force One fleet was $6,029 per hour, compared to $3,974 an hour in fiscal year 2004.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050927/us_nm/hurricanes_bush_dc_1)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20050927/2005_09_27t134358_321x450_us_hurricanes_commission .jpg

W off to another photo opt, all at taxpayer expense of course.

[boutons]

$3 isn't a change in lifestyle, THAT's what we have NOW, effectively.

A change in lifestyle is the +$2 federal tax per gallon that has been talked about for somtime. $5/gallon retail, THAT's a change in lifestyle. (and still below what most Europeans pay)

but dubya will never apply the $2 fed tax, because that would stimulate decrease in consumption, horrors!, stimluate incredible gains in gas mileage, and take $Bs out of the the pockets of his paymasters at the oilcos and put into the govt coffers where the whole nation can benefit it from it. (well, dubya would only give it to the rich + corps as another permanent tax cut, but at least $5/gal would stimulate conservation and alternatives)

[scott]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0525934189.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

[RandomGuy]

[big long article truncated for brevity]

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml

I agree with most of that article, it sums up quite a bit.

I don't think the environmental regulations should be eased however.

The full environmental costs of building refineries should be bourne by those who seek to profit from it. The only way of imposing those costs are by the government taking action and putting in place the restrictions needed.

If no one wants the refineries in their back yard, so be it. Let other countries build them and get the jobs.

In the end it is better for us in many ways to wean ourselves off oil, and the sooner the better.

[RandomGuy]

$3 isn't a change in lifestyle, THAT's what we have NOW, effectively.

A change in lifestyle is the +$2 federal tax per gallon that has been talked about for somtime. $5/gallon retail, THAT's a change in lifestyle. (and still below what most Europeans pay)

but dubya will never apply the $2 fed tax, because that would stimulate decrease in consumption, horrors!, stimluate incredible gains in gas mileage, and take $Bs out of the the pockets of his paymasters at the oilcos and put into the govt coffers where the whole nation can benefit it from it. (well, dubya would only give it to the rich + corps as another permanent tax cut, but at least $5/gal would stimulate conservation and alternatives)

This whole thing is benefitting Europe, surprisingly.

European economies are twice as efficient at turning a barrel of oil into a dollar of GDP.

The US has been far too dependant on cheap oil for too long. Things are going to get more expensive, and that is that. Such a tax would go a long way towards forcing Americans to make the leap sooner and would be cheaper in the long run than not imposing them.

I think such a tax is a very good idea because it would easily provide the money for improving mass transit in this country, and THAT would make our economy MUCH more efficient and competitive.

[SpursWoman]

W leads by example.....(NOT!)
W off to another photo opt, all at taxpayer expense of course.


Bitching because he wasn't there soon enough, then bitching about the gas he used to get there.


:lmao

[Useruser666]

user, I'm not yelling, IGNORE me.

Why should I? I guess I should have used "spouting off" instead of "yelling". You just recycle the same old garbage. Just take the latest subject and insert it this sentence:

Shrub and Darth Dick Vader are so stupid because they believe ________ can be solved by repug and neocon cray ass stratagies!

[Useruser666]

Who controls the past now controls the future.
Who controls the present now controls the past.

Is that what you meant?

Rage Against The Machine lyrics
Album: The Battle Of Los Angeles [1999]

Testify
The movie ran through me
The Glamour subdue me
The tabloid untie me
Im empty please fill me
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
I need you my witness
To dress this up so bloodless
To numb me and purge me now
Of thoughts of blaming you
Yes the car is our wheelchair
My witness your coughing
Oily silence mocks the legless
Boys who travel now in coffins

On the corner
The jurys sleepless
We found your weakness
And its right outside your door

Now testify
Now testify
Its right outside your door
Now testify
Yes testify
Its right outside your door

With precision you feed me
My witness Im hungry
Your temple it calms me
So I can carry on
My slaving, sweating,
The skin right off my bones
On a bed of fire Im choking
On the smoke that fills my home
The wrecking ball is rushing
Witness your blushing
The pipeline is gushing
While here we lie in tombs

While on the corner
The jurys sleepless
We found your weakness
And its right outside your door

Now testify
Yeah testify
Its right outside your door
Now Testify
Now Testify
And its right outside your door

Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set, and the price is set

Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?

Now Testify
Testify
Its right outside your door
Now Testify
Testify
Its right outside your door

[Useruser666]

$3 isn't a change in lifestyle, THAT's what we have NOW, effectively.

A change in lifestyle is the +$2 federal tax per gallon that has been talked about for somtime. $5/gallon retail, THAT's a change in lifestyle. (and still below what most Europeans pay)

but dubya will never apply the $2 fed tax, because that would stimulate decrease in consumption, horrors!, stimluate incredible gains in gas mileage, and take $Bs out of the the pockets of his paymasters at the oilcos and put into the govt coffers where the whole nation can benefit it from it. (well, dubya would only give it to the rich + corps as another permanent tax cut, but at least $5/gal would stimulate conservation and alternatives)

Uh, $5 dollars a gallon would not be good for the US. Such a HUGE increase would kill the economy. Such a drastic increase would never benefit any economy. Small increases in tax over many years might work. You can't collect a tax from goods when those goods no longer are sold because they become too expensive for anyone to buy. Increases in fuel efficiency don't come over night. There aren't even enough fuel efficient vehicles today to sustain the demand for hybrids. What kind of premiums do you think there would be if gas was $5.00 a gallon? How do you think this woul effect the poor? The truck drivers? Shipping industry? Any industry that ships products? How much do you think everything's prices would go up because of this? And for what? So all of your new source of tax revenue could go to pay for tons of new mass transit and wellfare for all the new poor people you just created.

[Useruser666]

W leads by example.....(NOT!)



Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050927/us_nm/hurricanes_bush_dc_1)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20050927/2005_09_27t134358_321x450_us_hurricanes_commission .jpg

W off to another photo opt, all at taxpayer expense of course.

Uh Dan, he's the president. What is supposed to do, pay for everything out of his own pocket? Maybe you forgot that it comes with the job.

[JoeChalupa]

I was watching Bill O'Reilly the other night and he was talking about how it is hard to justify the tax breaks for oil companies when they are all reporting big profits and he admitted that Bush needs to better explain why.



Number of U.S. states that are taking steps to teach "alternatives to evolution" in public schools: 31

[Useruser666]

I was watching Bill O'Reilly the other night and he was talking about how it is hard to justify the tax breaks for oil companies when they are all reporting big profits and he admitted that Bush needs to better explain why.



Number of U.S. states that are taking steps to teach "alternatives to evolution" in public schools: 31

I don't know what the specifics of those tax breaks are. I would support them if they were based off some sort of program that deals with hybrid research or alternative fuels. If that's not the case, or it can't be clearly demonstrated, then I'd not be for it.

[boutons]

The increase in gas prices in the last 12 months from $1.50 to near $3.00 hasn't killed the US economy, and $5 - $7/agal hasn't killed European economies. The tax could be stepped over a couple years, but probably the refiners, who don't seem to mind increasing their price by 255% in the last 12 months, will increase the price at a faster rate than the tax.

"increase would never benefit any economy"

The huge problem the USA faces (and the only fucking reason we are in Iraq) is our geo-political dependence of foreign (middle eastern) oil, and the $$drain on our economy in importing that oil, plus the $Bs sucked out of the economy by the oilcos. The tax would decrease consumption, decreasing our dependence on oil, with goal of buying none from the m/e, and moving $Bs in profits from the oilcos into the federal income where it could be put to use for all us, rather than just for the sterile enrichment of the already super-wealthy oilcos.

After the Iranian oil shock of the early 80, the west greatly reduced its demand for oil, and price of oil plummeted. What collapsed the Soviet Union was not Reagan, but they fact the the collapse the oil price greatly reduced the hard $$$ Russia earned from oil exports to keep their economy and cold-war military going.

btw, $3 gal now is the same price we paid in 1981, adjusted for inflation, so it's not the so expensive.

As the price of oil is forced down due to lower demand, the net effect of the $2 tax on pump prices will also go down.

The bogus Repug war in Iraq is all about oil, not about terrorism, which is itself directed against the USA by, eg Al Quaida, because the USA is "defiling" sacred Saudi Arabia by stationing troops there to protect US oil interests. Factor in the price of the US overseas oil wars into the articificially low pump price of gas, and you find that the price of oil is heavily subsidized, ie, it ain't really cheap at all.

[Useruser666]

Boutons, should the US have helped liberate Kuwait when Saddam invaded it?

[boutons]

yes, of course. The US is totally dependent on ME oil, so saving Kuwaiti and Saudi oil was in the fundamental interest of the USA.

But if we didn't buy any oil from the ME (meaning the price of oil would be much lower than now, so the dissuasive $2+ tax would be a lot less painful), then the decision to defend kuwait is a lot less automatic. Do you get the picture?

and do you know that Osama offered to the SA princes his services to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? when the SA princes chose to go with USA, Osama then turned against SA as defiling itself with USA boots on SA sands, and went off to East Africa in 1991 and then Afghanistan to start his jihad vs USA at full blast.

Oil is at the root of all of this anti-US jihad terrorist shit, but the politicians have no balls or common sense, esp not the oil-financed Repubs, to face that critical geo-political crisis.

[Useruser666]

But your $2.00 tax would kill the economy and give the money to the government which you already don't trust. The tax would be fine if we didn't depend on oil like we do. Maybe a tax on oil from a certain area? Uh oh, that would be bad for relations.

[boutons]

"your $2.00 tax would kill the economy"

I as explained, it wouldn't.

I don't trust THIS govt to do one fucking little thing for the USA, but everything for themselves and their paymasters.

But this govt is going to last. The oil crisis will.

[Useruser666]

You explination doesn't take into account about a million factors that will make it fail. That's why I have a problem with that.

[SpursWoman]

"your $2.00 tax would kill the economy"

I as explained, it wouldn't.


Speaking as a degreed, accounting professional specializing in financial and cost accounting...all I can say to that is:


:lmao




Until you have a viable energy alternative, the way our economy depends on oil you'd be better off putting that tax on WATER.

Obviously alternative sources are desperately needed, but we are no where near close enough that the economy could withstand something that drastic.

[boutons]

"the economy could withstand something that drastic."

the economies in Europe have been taxing gasoline and also cu in in automobile engines, for 30+ years. They're doing alright.

You people have every fucking justification for consuming oil without any restraint as far as the eye can see.

And the claim that the US economy and people are too fucking stupid and rigid to react and overcome the effects of a $2/gal tax is just BS. I know America can do it, and I'm the one who supposed to "hate America"?

We obviously can't replace oil, but we can make a huge dent in oil usage by taxing it into the price range where it is treatd as precious, limited commodity.

And by depressing demand for oil by taxing it to a level that it respected instead of wasted, we will get the the payback of decreasing the price of oil.

[boutons]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/sc/2005/sc050927.gif

and just what would that "comprehensive energy policy" be? defined as it was in secret with energy co execs?


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2005/ta050928.gif

[Useruser666]

"the economy could withstand something that drastic."

the economies in Europe have been taxing gasoline and also cu in in automobile engines, for 30+ years. They're doing alright.

You people have every fucking justification for consuming oil without any restraint as far as the eye can see.

And the claim that the US economy and people are too fucking stupid and rigid to react and overcome the effects of a $2/gal tax is just BS. I know America can do it, and I'm the one who supposed to "hate America"?

We obviously can't replace oil, but we can make a huge dent in oil usage by taxing it into the price range where it is treatd as precious, limited commodity.

And by depressing demand for oil by taxing it to a level that it respected instead of wasted, we will get the the payback of decreasing the price of oil.


You are way off base. Europe is nothing like the US. They have had higher prices for a long time compared to recent hikes in US prices. Their cars are different, their roads are different, their cities are different, and there are many other factors that are results of the economics of their fuel supply. You can't simply say, "Let's just take their model and stuff it down everyone's throat here." It won't work because I say so, it won't work because it's ludicris to think that practically double the costs of shipping, transportation, and all other uses for fuel will stimulate the economy. Since the US is based on one type of system of fuel dependancy and Europe on another, you can't simply switch those out. Now I'm sure Eurpoe would welcome the relatively cheap prices we pay here, but we could not support prices here.

[boutons]

"You are way off base"

no, you're a provincial dumbshit.

"They have had higher prices for a long time compared to recent hikes in US prices."

They are having oil worse price shocks now than the US. The US has had no petroleum price shock in real terms for the last 25 years. And everytime these has been a price shock the use reacted (forced to rather than choose to) by decreasing its use of petroleum required to produce a $ of GDP. The US has done it in the past, and can continue to do it. It's better to do it by choice (gas tax) now, than let consumption continue/increase and be forced to do it later.

The goal is to reduce consumption, which reduces the price, which reduces pollution, and above make America more immune to Arab/Muslmi BS in the Middle East.

"You can't simply say,"

and I didn't. you took those words right out of your ass.

"practically double the costs"

gasoline is not 100% of the cost of anything, so doubling the cost of fuel will not double the cost of anything, except if you are a refiner, and you more than double the cost of gasoline from the refinery in 12 months.

"Since the US is based on one type of system of fuel dependancy and Europe on another,"

WTF? The entire Western, industrialized world is based on petroleum. But most countries have made the effort, inflicted the pain, to stimulate conservation of petroleum as a limited resource. The Repubs haven't done a fucking effecive thing about conservation, until dubya spouted off his hypocritical charade aboue "drive less" this week.

I find your lack of comprehension and knowledge as amusing as your inability to articulate. But keep trying, practice makes perfect.

[Useruser666]

Does articulate mean shortening names from republicans to repugs? Does comprehension mean talking out your ass without knowing the first thing about the subject?

Europe has a different system of transportation than the US. It has different cars, trains, roads and cities. Is this not true?

Europe has lived with higher gas prices than the US for a longer time. They gradually got this state, it wasn't all of sudden thrust upon them.

Of all the examples I gave where a $2.00 tax on gas would NEARLY double the price, which of those doesn't fit? "shipping, transportation, and all other uses for fuel" is what I said would be greatly effected.

You can't just SAY people will use mass transit or switch their lifestyles if there are NO MEANS AVAILABLE for them to make the switch. How are the poor going to get to work? How are the lower middle class even going to be able to pay for such a huge jump in costs? You can't just stomp the dependancy out like that.

I would agree on some taxing along with tax incentives for alternate/hybrid implemintation and research.

[scott]

The US has had no petroleum price shock in real terms for the last 25 years.

So what exactly is your problem other than that companies existing in a free market economy are making profits?

[RandomGuy]

Factor in the price of the US overseas oil wars into the articificially low pump price of gas, and you find that the price of oil is heavily subsidized, ie, it ain't really cheap at all.


Bingo.

Iraq is $200Bn and counting.

Think how much research into renewables that would have bought...

[SpursWoman]

Oil wars?


:lmao :lmao


http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y32/mryoop789/tinfoil-hat.jpg

[SpursWoman]

Oh, and I don't disagree about the money for research for alternative fuel options...not at all.

But if ya'll are going to throw around ridiculous things like "oil wars", I guess I could throw in that $3.3 trillion dollars in the last 30 years or so spent by Democrats, leading the war on poverty. But failed to realize the extent of laziness and sense of entitlement a lot of them have. Talk about a waste of money....see? I can be ridiculous, too. :spin

[scott]

Or the war on drugs... or the war on guns... or the war on...

[SpursWoman]

Yep, those *wars* too. :)

[mookie2001]

not terror?

[scott]

That one is just as rediculous, mookie.

Politician's best friend: declaring war on the abstract.

[SpursWoman]

not terror?


They aren't really wars on terror, mookie, they are wars *for* OIL. Haven't you been paying attention?

:lol

[mookie2001]

not on, for.

[SpursWoman]

not on, for.


sorry, typing too fast.... :oops :lmao


A war on oil would be funny, though.... :drunk

[RandomGuy]

Oil wars?


:lmao
[hilarious picture omitted for brevity]


Don't get me wrong. I am NOT throwing in with the tin foil hat crowd that we went over to Iraq to take their oil and make the oil companies richer.

I DO think that part of the internal reasoning of the ex-oil executives that are our Prez and current VP was that we needed to protect our oil supply from an unstable madman. Cheney said as much in a speech I remember reading shortly before the war. (can't remember where, but I do remember reading the transcript from a reliable source)

Honestly, ensuring a stable energy supply safe from disruption from the formerly huge Iraqi army, would be something that I could agree with.

I just wish that we didn't have to worry about our oil supply as much, that's all.

[SpursWoman]

I just wish that we didn't have to worry about our oil supply as much, that's all.


Me, either. When we use oil like water and don't have any viable alternatives, you have to protect all of your sources...especially from lunatics that live to see us fail. And since we don't have a lot of other options, we'll always be vulnerable. Mother Nature has exposed that vulnerability more effectively than any suicide bomber ever could, IMO.

And one could just as easily say, "How about cut out all of those welfare programs? I resent having to pay for people who refuse to pull their own weight...that money could be far better spent researching better, cleaner, more cost-effective fuel sources."

:fro









Damn...did that last part sound like something whottt would say?? :wow :lmao

[RandomGuy]

And one could just as easily say, "How about cut out all of those welfare programs? I resent having to pay for people who refuse to pull their own weight...that money could be far better spent researching better, cleaner, more cost-effective fuel sources."

:fro


One could just as easily say that if we paid down the massive pile of government debt we could do a lot more tax cutting... :angel

[SpursWoman]

:lol


See, there's waste every where. :)

[Winehole23]

Total U.S. energy use is trending down and has dropped 6 percent from its 2007 peak -- and the total last year was lower than for 1999 (although the economy grew by 25 percent from 1999-2012, adjusted for inflation). This means our factories and businesses are producing substantially more products and value with less energy.
Electricity sales have declined in four of the past five years, including last year, which is a stunning shift for an industry that saw retail sales double between 1973 and 2000 (three times the rate of population growth). Much of the recent decline results from utility investment in energy efficiency programs –- like helping customers upgrade their lighting and weatherization –- between 2007 and 2012.
America’s oil use continued its unexpected decline in 2012, down 14 percent from the 2005 peak. In fact, oil use last year was lower than in 1973 (when the nation’s economy was only about a third of its current size). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), new fuel economy and clean car standards will cut oil consumption in 2025 by 2.1 million barrels per day, which is more than we buy now from any OPEC country.
U.S. coal use in 2012 was lower than in 1990 and down more than 20 percent from the peak year of 2007. This mostly reflects a shift away from increasingly uneconomic coal-burning power plants, whose air pollution produces more premature deaths than any other form of U.S. or global energy use.

And America’s most productive energy resource is? As these trends suggest, energy efficiency -- ways of doing more with the same amount of energy – is our most productive resource. And it’s our cleanest and cheapest one, too.
Thanks to all the ways we’ve been stretching our energy dollars over the past four decades we’ve more than doubled the economic productivity of our barrels of oil, kilowatt-hours of electricity, and natural gas therms without even trying very hard (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/scaling-up-energy-efficiency-IB.pdf). (To see an infographic showing the report's highlights, click here (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rcavanagh/2013/10/08/EE%20infographic%209.3.pdf).)
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center (http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/america%E2%80%99s-energy-resurgence-sustaining-success-confronting-challenges), energy efficiency’s contribution to meeting growth in our energy needs over that period exceeds that of all other energy resources COMBINED. As a result:


Total energy per dollar of goods produced is down;
Gasoline per mile driven, down;
Cost of energy services (from lighting to refrigeration), down;
National carbon footprint, down.


http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rcavanagh/assets_c/2013/10/Figure%204%20Annual%20Energy%20Report%20560%20px-thumb-500x299-12756.jpg (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rcavanagh/assets_c/2013/10/Figure%204%20Annual%20Energy%20Report%20560%20px-12756.html)
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rcavanagh/great_energy_news_whats_americ.html

[boutons_deux]

Total energy per dollar of goods produced is down;
Gasoline per mile driven, down;
Cost of energy services (from lighting to refrigeration), down;
National carbon footprint, down.


along with reduction in environmental pollution, nearly all the PROGRESS above has been due to GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, not the "free market always providing the optimum solution"

[Wild Cobra]

Total energy per dollar of goods produced is down;
Gasoline per mile driven, down;
Cost of energy services (from lighting to refrigeration), down;
National carbon footprint, down.


along with reduction in environmental pollution, nearly all the PROGRESS above has been due to GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, not the "free market always providing the optimum solution"

You call this bad economy... progress...

Why doesn't that surprise me?

[boutons_deux]

You call this bad economy... progress...

Why doesn't that surprise me?

the bad economy (for the 99%) is due the long tail of the Banksters' Great Depression, a tail purposely, sociopathically lengthened by the Repugs reducing or blocking all the Dems attemtps to stimulate the economy and job creation.

and the economy is taking a serous hit by Repug assholes like Cruz and Repug-fabricated govt crisis-to-crisis