Regaining energy leverage

Washington Times ^ | January 30, 2006 | Michael O'Hanlon, David Sandalow

[cogitator]

Many people want a big vehicle for their egos.

Or because advertising is effective.

[JamesP81]

My 5-bedroom house has been totally fluorescent for years, both inside and out, and it is insulated beyond the most recent code requirements for our climate.

Ugh. Flourescent lights give me wicked migraine headaches. You should see my office. I have a picture window, so I don't even turn my light on when I get in in the morning.

[ThinkDifferent]

My point is actually this: a tax, at any level, by definition goes to the government.

Sure. As I said, taxes are a necessary evil, and like Reagan I emphasize the "evil".

To support your position, I'd have to believe that the government could do more and better problem-solving if only it had more of your money and mine.

Absolutely not. I would oppose any increase in the gas tax that was not balanced by reduced taxes elsewhere. In fact net taxes should be cut substantially, but that's a separate issue.

It DOES strike me as the kind of incremtalism that, in recent years, has enjoined free citizens from everything from medium-rare hamburgers and eggs over easy, to restrictions on who may own a firearm for protection and where in the great outdoors one might light a cigarette.

Actually the gas tax is less invasive than any of those examples. It doesn't say you can't buy the type of car you want, as CAFE standards do. It does say that if you use a lot of gas, you should be taxed more because you are imposing more costs on society.

When pumped oil exceeds a certain price, shale, bio, nuclear and hydrogen will move in to fill any void.

Yes. But my claim is that the true cost of gas is higher than what is reflected in the price at the pump due to the negative externalities, and thus without correction market forces will take too long to make the transition.

In the meantime, the government enjoys quite enough of my earnings.

Completely agreed.

[ThinkDifferent]

BTW your screen name is great. I'm a night person, and mornings suck.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

" I say increase the tax on gas by $1.00 per gallon and use all funds to..."

...fund ethanol production and plug-in hybrids.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"A novel idea: let's let the market decide. If we are really running out of oil (as has been incorrectly predicted since we first started pumping it), then prices will rise until alternatives become economic without government fiat or subsidies."

Your "novel idea" is a joke. The market doesn't decide... OPEC decides! Right now the price of oil is extremely high. High enough to justify alternatives. The problem is money. Investors can easily be uncut by OPEC dumping oil on the market and driving price down which would make an alternative energy investment too risky.

By sitting back and waiting for the market to decide, we end up pumping America's treasury into the Arab banks.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

It is not a joke, the Europeans use this method. OPEC does have an impact on oil prices, but it does not control the majority of oil produced in the world and Saudi Arabia frequently pumps more oil than their quota.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"OPEC does have an impact on oil prices, but it does not control the majority of oil produced in the world and Saudi Arabia frequently pumps more oil than their quota..."

They may not control a "majority", but they do control the price. If OPEC cut their collective production, prices would shoot up. OPEC owns the export market, and is able to dictate the price.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

You have a different definition of the word control than I do. The only way OPEC controls prices is by setting the production of oil, thereby keeping supply down (and prices up). The demand for oil has gone up because the US, Chinese and Indian economies are growing. Also, no new refineries have been built in the US for many years. My daughter works for an oil company and trades oil on the commodities market. I suggest you do more research on the subject.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"You have a different definition of the word control than I do...My daughter works for an oil company...I suggest you do more research on the subject."

control: a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE b : to have power over : RULE c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels

---

I was thinking the same thing about you. Just because your daughter is an order taker for oil contracts doesn't mean you know $#!T.

OPEC is by far the largest supplier of export oil.

OPEC and FSU(Former Soviet Union) countries between them control over 80% of proven reserves of oil and gas. At end 2003 OPEC had 77% of oil and 50% of gas reserves and FSU had 8% of oil and 32% of gas.

They CONTROL the vast majority of the oil available on the market. THEY DON'T USE IT, THEY SELL IT.

The price of oil has gone up because the suppliers are artificially holding back supply. It's that simple.

The Far East (China and India) has only increase oil usage by ~2 million barrels a day in the last 10 years, according to the International Energy Annuals. This is not the reason for an increase in price. The proven reserves are there, it's just not coming to the market.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

How about some respect here. I don't totally disagree with you about OPEC's ability to influence oil prices. I just don't think that OPEC controls the price of oil. As your last post indicates the definition of control goes from directing influence to rule.





http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555897/posts

[thackney]

U.S. economy needs to "get off" oil and fossil fuels

Why? We have the resources to provide for our energy needs. We just need to develop them and quit sending our dollars to foriegn governments.

[muleskinner]

Biodiesel - it gets much better milage than ethanol.

[cogitator]

Why? We have the resources to provide for our energy needs.

What resources? Like oil shales?

[thackney]

What resources? Like oil shales?

Yes and ANWR and OCS and Coal and Uranium and oil sands and wind power and geothermal, etc

[cogitator]

Yes and ANWR and OCS and Coal and Uranium and oil sands and wind power and geothermal, etc

I'm not sure what you mean by OCS; while I'm not an advocate of drilling ANWR, I'm pretty sure that there will be increased utilization of all these resources over the coming decades.

[thackney]

I'm not sure what you mean by OCS

Much of the area that makes up the outer continental shelf (OCS) is now off-limits to oil and gas companies because of federal moratoriums on drilling there. But as high prices force job cuts in sectors that rely heavily on natural gas, pressure is building to give states the option of “opting out” of the drilling ban, sources in Congress and along K Street say.

while I'm not an advocate of drilling ANWR

Why not? If ANWR is not big enough to begin producing, name one undeveloped area that has similar resouces potential in ratio to the area to be disturbed.