First, I tend to agree with Laura and $4+ gas is actually good. I do agree that this does push people to conserve more (I carpool 3 days a week) and provides an incentive to the private sector to push for alternative fuels. Just today I saw "Go Nuclear" sign in someones yard in Dana Point. You wouldn't see that with $2 gas. The problem starts though with the thought that gas would stay around $4. It won't. Currently as of this morning, gas in Southern CA is $4.69. Why would anyone think that gas wouldn't be even higher in a couple of months. There is no indication that oil would go in the other direction with the weak dollar, Iran War on the horizon, and no drilling allowed.
When will it stop? When will enough be enough. You would be naive to think that gas would stay in the $4-$5 range. Carol and I are planning on gas being in the $7-$8 range since Congress and the President won't do anything. Just like Social Security and Health Care, I'm up for every option.
- Alaska Drilling- Let's go folks. What will it take for people who have never been to Alaska to say, "Let's go".
- Off shore Drilling- I had a nice chat with Richie last week and I asked him how his dad was doing. He chuckled and said that he is so pissed right now at Arnold because he won't drill off the coast of CA. Ha!
- Nuclear Plants- Why are people scared? Because of Chernobyl? Um, that nuclear plant was run by idiot Russians. We have one right on the ocean down the road from us and there are no complaints.
- Strengthen the dollar- We need a balanced budget to get the dollar stronger.
- Alternative fuels- Well I'm for it. I'm for tax breaks, government incentives, or whatever else is needed. I know that Arnold just gave some very large incentives to Tesla Motors who has a electric car with a 200 mile range.
- Conserve- Here is the problem though about conserving. California is thinking about raising the gas tax since consumption is down 3% and they are losing out on all of the revenue. Seriously? Really?
- Speculation- Leave it be. For people that have no idea on why it was created and how much it provides some normalcy to the market, just shut up.
- Taxes- Help me understand how taxing the Oil companies help us with this situation. If people can, then I would be for it, but it just seems to me that it is spiteful and serves no purpose.
Now, I would think that I'm the only one here that can truely bitch about gas prices and truth be told, my budget has not gone up for gas. I used to have an Infiniti that used premium gas which I got rid of last August. I now carpool with people from work, so despite gas prices increasing at a fast rate, I have held my budget the same. So it works for now, but jack prices up again to $6 and then we are going to be in some trouble.
13 comments:
Bush is such a joke. Totally ineffective. Today, he "symbolically" lifts a ban on offshore drilling. I'm sorry but drilling for oil in protected areas is not going to solve any problems. And, we won't see any benefit for another 10 years from it. Why don't I hear him pushing new technologies for harnessing "renewable" energies? What about plans from moving off of oil based fuels in our cars? We should be moving in this direction so that in 10 or 20 years oil won't be an issue anymore.
But no, all Bush can say is ANWR and off shore drilling. This guy was horrible when he took office in 2001 and no better in 2008. He has accomplished nothing in 8 years. And if anyone brings up Saddam, they can kiss my ass. I didn't live in Iraq so I did't particularly care about some 2 bit dictator with supposed "WMD's".
What-you mean one sentence about switchgrass biofuel in his 2006 SoTU wasn't enough for you??
Anyway, not that it does any good to think about it, but can you imagine where we'd be right now on this issue if we were at the end of an 8 year Gore presidency? Our cars would probably all run on garbage ala Back to the Future!
Are you serious Laura? If Gore was in office, we all would be paying an extra $2 per gallon as he believes in taxing the shit out of gas. Let's not forget his campaign in California on the gas tax hike of $2 last year that lost. His reasoning was that it would spur the private sector to create something new. That was voted down by 80%.
The PRICE of gas isn't the issue. The point is to develop technologies that reduce our reliance on gas-long term. Even if gas was at $6 a gallon, would it matter if your car used only 10% of it's current consumption? You'd still be saving money...
Price of gas may not be the issue for you and me, but it is the issue with Gore. This is what he campaigned for out here in CA. He believes that higher gas is the only way to get the private sector heavily involved in coming up with alternatives.
Now I'm for the development of alternatives, but not at the cost of higher gas. As stated in the post, there are ways to provide incentives to the private sector. And it is working on a very slow and modest scale.
And Kermit, I'm afraid I disagree with you on your first comment. Drilling would provide some short term and long term improvements in the price of gas. One of the drivers of the price of gas is driven by speculation of what the future supply will be. This is why we have daily swings in price based on a Tropical storm off the coast of the atlantic to rebels attacking an African refinery. Just the act of Bush lifting the Executive Order on drilling lowered gas prices to $136 today. This is what caused the drop, not a sudden change in supply and demand. If Iran came out tomorrow and said that they signed a peace treaty with Isreal, then oil would drop another $10.
If we announce that we will open up drilling, this will drop the price of oil again, despite not receiving one ounce of oil for 10 years.
But, as Laura pointed out, the cost of gas is not, or at least should not be, the main focus here. So let's say we open up offshore drilling. Oil prices go down and we will eventually have more domestic oil available to us. Both of these things decrease the incentives for us to be looking at alternatives.
If there's one thing we should all have learned about our country by now it's that we are very short-sighted as a nation. Remember the gas shortage from the 70's? You'd think that whole incident would have jump-started research into alternative energy sources. But clearly it didn't. If those same events happened tomorrow we'd be in the same boat now as we were then: Crazy long lines and ridiculous prices for gas - if you can find a gas station that has any.
Now, if we had been looking into alternatives for the 30 years since that incident we might already have other options. Unfortunately, as soon as the immediate oil supply was again sufficient nearly everyone went right back to business as usual and never looked back.
What is it they say about those who don't study history?
So you're against the development of alternatives if it means higher gas prices right now. But what if higher gas prices right now mean significantly lower fuel costs 10 years from now? Also keep in mind that lower gas prices right now do not guarantee lower gas prices next year.
When was the last time you saw gas prices go DOWN? And going down 10 cents a week after going up a dollar doesn't count.
1. Be careful Dude. Your making it sound like I'm against the development of alternatives. What I'm against is the point that several politicians (your beloved Gore included) make that raising taxes on gas will help with the development of alternatives. I agree that the those do not go hand and hand.
2. Your comments on the dependence on the 70s crisis is a little incorrect. It did spur development, but the wrong kind in most of our minds. Instead of developing fuel alternatives, we developed different areas to purchase oil from. Mexico, Venzuela, and several countries in Africa really profited from that development. And so if you really want to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again, you would be for drilling in ANWAR and off the coasts so we don't have to purchase foreign oil. At least this is a start to ensure that the 70s crisis doesn't happen again.
3. To your last comment, I will be more than happy to go along with it if someone can please explain how this will work. Explain to me how higher gas prices will ensure lower fuel costs in the future. Because in my view, once we are on our way to developing new fuel alternatives, then naturally the price of gas will drop since there will be a lower demand for it. Does that mean all development stops for the new fuel source? I would say no, so that is why I don't buy into the fact that we can't drill and develop at the same time.
We can have new alternatives and cheaper gas hand and hand. And its frustrating to talk to people who only believe that you can have one or the other. Either have high gas prices and fuel alternatives or no alternatives and we drill.
4. Price in Southern CA dropped 20 cents in less than a week. When I posted this blog on Sunday, oil was $4.69. It is now $4.49 at the same location. We did not see large $1 increase recently and we are in the dead of summer which is usually the peak for oil prices.
I understand what you're saying Derek. But think of what we're paying for a similar cause (national security) on the war in Iraq. I bet that comes out to much more than $2 a gallon, not to mention the lives that have been lost. And what have we gained from it? Why are republicans always OK with the gov't spending ridiculous amounts of unregulated money as long as it goes towards defense, but when it comes to paying a small "tax" that can be used towards making us the world leader in green technology they wet their pants?? 8 years later, we're at $4 a gallon now anyway, and what do we have to show for it?
I guess there are 2 mindsets-1 that the market should do this itself and 2 that the gov't should push it to speed things along. Now, I think we're at a point where the market is ready to function on its own-the new technologies are going to start happening. The "green" movement and national security concerns are mobilizing people on both sides of the aisle and there is little need for gov't taxing or funding.
But, we were in a very different place 8 years ago-few viewed oil independence as a nat'l security threat and global warming was still something for hippy tree huggers. Can you imagine how ahead of the game we would be if the nation had come together to fund a $2 gas tax 8 years ago? I don't know the details of Gores CA proposal, but let's assume that some of that $ would have gone to fund these types of discoveries. Let's also assume that in a Gore presidency would not be at war with Iraq. Instead of attacking them militarily, we could have isolated them by removing our dependence on their oil. Once we showed how conservation could boost the economy, how long would it take for other nations to follow suit-China, India. Our country would be much more financially stable-less borrowing from foreign markets, stronger $. How much power do you think the middle east would have if their oil revenues dried up? In my mind, that would have been a much more effective long-term solution to this problem in the middle east. But everyone got tripped up on the word "tax". It's rather sad and short sighted.
Layup, you're saying that raising taxes on gas does not go hand in hand with increased development of alternative fuels. I agree that they don't necessarily go hand in hand, but if the very purpose of a new gas tax is to provide funding for alternative fuels then they do go hand in hand. It's just a matter of planning (and sticking to that plan) what to do with the revenues from a new gas tax. That money could go a long way towards R&D of alternatives.
You say that the 70's gas crisis did spur development, but the wrong kind. Apparently it spurred development of new sources of oil. And now we're back in the same boat - unstable/unreliable oil sources. So what's the solution this time? You're really suggesting that drilling in ANWAR and off the coasts (a.k.a. development of new sources of oil) will work better this time? There's still the same problem - oil is a limited resource and WILL run out. Finding new places to get it just prolongs the issue.
So you'd be more than happy to go along with higher gas prices if they will ensure lower fuel costs in the future. Well, how about this: we implement a new, $2/gallon gas tax and ALL revenue from that tax goes towards subsidies/incentives for renewable energy research and/or building infrastructure to support delivery of some new fuel source (hydrogen filling stations or whatever you'll need to fuel your car with whatever alternative we come up with).
To be honest, I'd love to see lower gas prices and work towards alternative fuel sources. However, considering our history along with the general short-sightedness of our nation, I just cannot believe that we will continue substantial research into alternatives if gas prices remain relatively low. This only becomes an issue for people when they are directly impacted in their wallet. And as soon as that direct impact is reduced, those same people immediately forget the issue and pull right back up to the gas pump without even considering the long-term ramifications.
Laura and Dude- Why would you think that there would be anything different between government spending on defense vs alternative fuels? I don't see a difference. I agree that there are major issues with government spending no matter if it is with defense, corporate bailout, or healthcare. There is just so much waste in every aspect of our government spending and it pisses me off to no end.
I think that this was some of the reason why the bill didn't pass in CA. With how liberal this state is, there is just zero trust that the money will be spent appropriately. Remember the big bill in CA to support stem cell research? This was passed to provide $1 billion in tax payer money to spur research on stem cells. What has come of that? I seriously don't know. I voted in favor of that, but what has come of it.
And we should do some additional research on what a gas tax hike would do to our economy. Look what's happening now. The market reacts in such a large way with a very minor movements in oil prices. What would happen if the only thing that we did was to implement a gas tax? I don't think we could prove to the other countries that this is the way to grow our economy. And have you ever been to India or China? The polution is at levels that make us look like the EPA runs the country. Why haven't these countries even taken the smallest steps that we have already taken to help improve their environment? And then why would you think that they would follow in our footsteps if we take another 10 steps further.
What I would support would be a modest tax hike with some very defined spending roles, along with tax incentives, along with off shore drilling. The tax incentives would spur conservation with drilling offsetting some of the tax hike. I would be in favor of a major tax on Trucks and SUVs. Maybe a 20% luxury tax up front on these types of vehicles to deter people from buying them as they are not fuel efficient.
Also, understand that further increase in the price of gas would reduce usage, which then would lower the revenue produced. We are seeing that right now in CA. That is why Arnold and Congress wants to increase the gas tax just to compensate the short falls they are seeing in the tax revenue. The tax increase on gas is not for development of alternative fuels, but rather other earmarks.
Don't be so pessimistic. And, don't tax my Yukon! I'm doing my part to conserve by hypermiling. Basically, you try to use the gas and brake pedals as little as possible. Sure, taking those corners at 30mph is a little tricky, but I'm getting better with practice. I basically coast my way to work everyday. I swear it has increased my mpg and, better yet, it makes daily commuting competitive!
i like how dudeman stayed in character and referred to zahn as "layup."
Post a Comment