Missed petroleum opportunities
Oil and gas prices were really low in the '90s. We could have used the economic slack low prices allow us to take measures to reduce our long-term dependence on oil. Instead, we went on an SUV-buying spree. Yesterday's New York Times had a great article recounting various missed opportunities to take measures that would have made the current spike in oil price less painful that it is.
I understand the opposition to a gas tax, although I favor one (actually, I'd be in favor of carbon tax with credits as offsets to mitigate the regressive impact of it), but the opposition to the 4.3-cent-a-gallon -- not percent, but cent -- increase in the gas tax that Bill Clinton eventually got passed in 1993 reached Armageddon levels. That 4.3 cents doesn't look so significant now, does it?
Some proponents of the gas tax or a carbon tax are dismissive of fuel efficiency standards as a way to reduce gas consumption. I see their point, but with gas taxes as politically toxic as they are and the converse having such unpleasant effects as a rise in SUV consumption, it seems to me that you could save a lot of barrels of oil that way. The article details how the imposition of such standards helped hold down American oil consumption throughout the '80s despite the fact that oil prices dropped a lot during that time. The article also points out that the US consumes a giant portion of world oil supplies -- 25% -- such that American consumption habits could have a big impact on global demand and, therefore, price. Opposition to fuel-efficiency standards by everyone from the UAW to free-market Republicans looks awfully short-sighted these days.
The environmental downside of oil usage already makes the case for such measures. What makes oil different from say, coal, in the regard is that the global supply of oil is limited. We can either plan for a reduction in oil consumption so as to minimize the economic pain that would cause or have the choice made for us in a way that doesn't. We chose the latter path and are now paying the price.
I understand the opposition to a gas tax, although I favor one (actually, I'd be in favor of carbon tax with credits as offsets to mitigate the regressive impact of it), but the opposition to the 4.3-cent-a-gallon -- not percent, but cent -- increase in the gas tax that Bill Clinton eventually got passed in 1993 reached Armageddon levels. That 4.3 cents doesn't look so significant now, does it?
Some proponents of the gas tax or a carbon tax are dismissive of fuel efficiency standards as a way to reduce gas consumption. I see their point, but with gas taxes as politically toxic as they are and the converse having such unpleasant effects as a rise in SUV consumption, it seems to me that you could save a lot of barrels of oil that way. The article details how the imposition of such standards helped hold down American oil consumption throughout the '80s despite the fact that oil prices dropped a lot during that time. The article also points out that the US consumes a giant portion of world oil supplies -- 25% -- such that American consumption habits could have a big impact on global demand and, therefore, price. Opposition to fuel-efficiency standards by everyone from the UAW to free-market Republicans looks awfully short-sighted these days.
The environmental downside of oil usage already makes the case for such measures. What makes oil different from say, coal, in the regard is that the global supply of oil is limited. We can either plan for a reduction in oil consumption so as to minimize the economic pain that would cause or have the choice made for us in a way that doesn't. We chose the latter path and are now paying the price.
Labels: oil
posted by honestpartisan | 7:03 AM
25 Comments:
recounting various missed opportunities to take measures that would have made the current spike in oil price less painful that it is.
Like refinery construction or increased domestic drilling? Oh wait, your goal isn't decreased energy cost but carbon reduction...
I favor one (actually, I'd be in favor of carbon tax with credits as offsets to mitigate the regressive impact of it),
Because punishing the middle class will save the environment. I guess when everyone is poor mother gia will thank us. / sarcasim.
The environmental downside of oil usage already makes the case for such measures.
No, skyrocketing food costs, increased unemployment and a greater share of human misery refute you contention.
We can either plan for a reduction in oil consumption so as to minimize the economic pain that would cause or have the choice made for us in a way that doesn't
I'd agree that alternative energy is needed and worth investing in but I don't see it on the horizon any time soon.
We could have mitigated current fuel costs years ago by alowing a few more refinerys to be built and authorizing drilling off shore and in ANWAR but instead Democrats pushed for economic energy oblivion and Republicans rolled over knowing thier big oil supporters would make a killing.
Republicans have been too weak fighting the democrats environmental knee jerk to suicide for far too long. From democrats killing coal in the 70s, to nuclear power in the 80s to democrats killing incrased domestic oil production in the 90s to not bothering to fight democrats who've killed new hydroelectric, thermal and wind my party aught to be ashamed it didn't take the left to task a long time ago. The left on the other hand should simply pay the ballance IMHO.
Carbon tax indeed.
"[M]other gia"? Is that a reference to Angelina Jolie (mother of almost six who played model Gia Carangi in the movie "Gia")? Seriously, though, take some time to proofread ("sarcasim," "alowing," "thier," "refinerys," "aught," "ballance"). The misspellings are distracting.
I've heard that in many cases the oil companies declined to build new refineries, instead choosing to upgrade existing ones.
Conservatives are oddly illogical when it comes to alternative energy. It's easy to see that real investment will only arrive when oil hits a certain price. We're starting to get there...
It's easy to see that real investment will only arrive when oil hits a certain price. We're starting to get there...
I can't think of one mainstream republican ellected official whose currently suggesting we can drill our way out of high energy costs. Certainly there are no democrats. However, I can think of many Democrats more concerned with the possible (I stress possible) climate effects of CO2 instead of the plight of suffering American people who can't a afford fuel oil to heat thier oil or gas to get to work.
I'd suggest for the good of the nation you guys realign your priorities. Unemployed people and national destitution isn't the way to save the planet.
Should read
American people who can't a afford fuel oil to heat thier homes or gas to get to work.
as for Anonymous
eat shit, die etc etc LOL.
I still wish I knew what my nation's energy policy is, but it was all crafted in the dead of night behind closed doors in undisclosed locations. Oh wise oil men, what have you done?
Because punishing the middle class will save the environment.
Class warfare! Class warfare!
Skyrocketing food costs, increased unemployment and a greater share of human misery refute you contention.
Overdependence on oil makes that stuff inevitable (including the harm to the middle class). Ratcheting down oil consumption (at least if it was done timely) would mitigate that, rather than pretending that it's going to go on forever and then dealing with the hard landing that follows.
I can't think of one mainstream republican ellected official whose currently suggesting we can drill our way out of high energy costs.
Let me think ...
HP -- in fairness to Free, Gingrich does not currently hold office. Doesn't pay enough, natch. Still, give him credit -- even a stopped clock gets it right now and then....
Steve, I'm going to get lawyerly on you and point out that the "current" requirement didn't apply to whether the elected official is currently holding office, but whether they currently think that we can drill our way out of the problem.
I'm going to have to play a bit of editor ball and stand behind my reading of the phrase "one mainstream republican ellected official" to refer specifically to one who is currently holding office (signified by the key words "ellected official"), your red herring of a "currently" be damned!
Actually from Gingrich's own Youtube site he supports heavily investing in alternative fuels. But my point stands, even GWB says we can't drill our way out of this.
When you say "decreasing consumption" what happens is cars don't drive and people loose jobs, trucks don't run and goods cost more, ships don't sail and goods cost more, airplanes don't fly and goods cost more.
Rich people like paris hilton and donald trump could care less. They can afford it.
Its the middle class that will bear the brunt of the increased cost. For a party who claims to champion the middle class, you Dems sure all about screwing them, especially on this issue.
Give me a peice of paper that says we should develope alternative fuels and I'll sign it. Show me a company that is developing them and I'll invest in it (wait, I already have!) but the fact remains we can't reduce petrolium usage until alternative fuel is developed. Thats years a way. Hard, lean, painful years. Anyone who doesn't want to mitigate that by simply alowing the private sector to drill and refine is mania.
I mean seriously, do you really care that much about inconvieniencing some carabou in alaska or hurting dolphin ears off shore?
Its the middle class that will bear the brunt of the increased cost.
You keep missing the point that the price of oil is going to go up anyway, with the attendant pain for the middle class. The question is whether it will go up in a way that we manage so as to minimize the damage or whether it will go up in a way that we don't plan for and then get socked -- like we are now.
And if you're so concerned about the middle class, I look forward to your support for progressive taxation, national health insurance, protection of union organizing, reversing bankruptcy reform, regulation of mortgage brokers & investment banks, and replacement of student loans with grants.
Also, most of the article was about raising fuel efficiency standards, not gas taxes. How does better gas mileage hurt the middle class?
You keep missing the point that the price of oil is going to go up anyway
NO I DON'T!!!!!
That is precisely the reason we need to drill, to mitigate the cost!!!
The question is whether it will go up in a way that we manage so as to minimize the damage or whether it will go up in a way that we don't plan for and then get socked
This is a great arguement for increased domestic production, not against it.
And if you're so concerned about the middle class, I look forward to your support for progressive taxation,
Progressive taxation, I'm for a national VAT tax. I'm for not punishing any segment of the population, rich or middle class. In our country, the poor get of scott free when it comes to taxes.
national health insurance
Why would I ever want to curse anyone with national health insurance? Thats just mean. Thats like wishing aids on someone. I can't wait to retire and get off the government mismanaged insurance I have NOW that costs MORE than my Blue Cross/ Blue Shield did and go back to that!
protection of union organizing
What about protecting those middle class who hate unions, like me? I think Unions hurt the middle class with their insanely high mandatory dues, and my family helped found the teamsters union! The teamsters took 500 bucks out of my wallet in initiation fees and another 100 per month and never did a thing for me. All they managed to do was drive my employer out of business and cost me my job. I would have been better off without them. The UAW has single handedly wrecked the economy of michigan. I think we'd all do the iddle class a favor if we let them decide on joining the union (like in right to work states) instead of defacto being forced to by state law.
As for bankruptcy, pay your bills. You must be a bankruptcy attorney.
Also, most of the article was about raising fuel efficiency standards, not gas taxes. How does better gas mileage hurt the middle class?
It doesn't, and my comments weren't about gas taxes. However since you braught it up, the government benifits from higher fuel costs much more than oil companies. Where's our "windfall profits" tax on our own government cleaning up on the rising price of fuel?
Like refinery construction or increased domestic drilling?
Or not closing refineries like they have been for decades.
Get some perspective "free", and a job.
"Why would I ever want to curse anyone with national health insurance? Thats just mean. Thats like wishing aids on someone."
"I hate the media, and I hate thier stooges.
Tim Russert was a stooge. A sophisticated stooge, but just another liberal scum bag bias reporter from the media.
I hope he burns in hell and I hope his son dies of aids and his wife takes up a new career in porn.
Fuck him.
Call me classy!
free0352 | 06.16.08 - 5:57 pm | #"
Oh anon, I have a job, in the Army. You know that.
As for my comments on russert, I'm not deneying I made them. I did, and I'll stand by them. I loath media types like liberals loath union busters.
But tell me, what the fuck does that have to do with gas prices? You really can't keep track of what topic we're on can you paul?
Here's wishing some AIDS for Mr. "Free"
It's just mean
there's nothing honest in people like you
What the FUCK does 90% of this chatter, mostly yours, have to do with gas prices? None
Job? Try and quit, try and renegotiate the terms. See how much it looks like a j o b, refuse a vaccination see how much it looks like a j o b, refuse a assignment, see how much it looks like a j o b.
And that government health care that you get? I think if it's good enough for you and the good men and women in uniform, it should be good enough for Joe Q. public and family.
Shove your arrogant stupidity up your ass, if you could have kept a job you wouldn't be in the army, you have said as much here with your attacks on unions and the connection with the trucking industry.
The Army appears to be the last refuge for you loser.
Enlistment in the United States Military is not a job. You get paid but there are no unemployment benefits payed in by your "employer" and you do not have any governmental job rights - you are ENLISTED, not employed.
You are a Fool, not a Free
Med-I-cation is your friend LOL
As for Tricare, it pretty much my strongest arguement against socialized medicine. However, if civillians get cursed with it I would of course expect them to work 18 hour days in 140 heat like I do seperated from thier families for years at a time...
As for if what I do is a job or not, why not google what john glen had to say about it... Think of it as a little research project to keep you busy between group thearapy sessions.
of course you wouldn't know about what we do in the service, you never served in the military LOL
As for my honesty, I'm perfectly hoest. Mean, nasty, grumpy and crude yes... buy you're holding the monopoly in the bullshit department LOL
Well, off to Iraq today!
Med-I-cation is your friend LOL
As for Tricare, it pretty much my strongest arguement against socialized medicine. However, if civillians get cursed with it I would of course expect them to work 18 hour days in 140 heat like I do seperated from thier families for years at a time...
As for if what I do is a job or not, why not google what john glen had to say about it... Think of it as a little research project to keep you busy between group thearapy sessions.
of course you wouldn't know about what we do in the service, you never served in the military LOL
As for my honesty, I'm perfectly hoest. Mean, nasty, grumpy and crude yes... buy you're holding the monopoly in the bullshit department LOL
Well, off to Iraq today!
Couldn't cut the enlistment argument and the FACT is that the enlistee isn't covered under tricare they get govt healthcare.
You remain enlisted not employed,
Honest you aren't.
The govt. sends another diabled veteran back to Iraq.
Get some action this time you chronic liar.
Well Free I see you are still unable to keep your promises and are right back at your slander again.
When I was young they spit on my father for serving, when I enlisted everyone said why are you doing that, you have a good life and work for a good company?
America still didn't appreciate service to country.
Now a punk like yourself that wants everyone to say "tahnk you for you service" stands back and strips me of mine, not once but repeatedly.
You are worse than those that spit on my father, and worse than those that called our home at 1 in the morning when he was away to tell my mother he was a baby killer.
I pitty you free and yes in a angry spot in my heart I hate you because you wear the uniform of our country and do these things in public to veterans like myself and bring shame on the entire military when you do.
Prove I was somewhere other than a member of the United States Air Force between March 1978 and March 1982 (while you were learning not to pee and poop in your pants) and then you can say I never served.
I have a DD214 that shows I did.
Die in Iraq, but do it from something other than the injuries of an honearble soldier, because you don't deserve it.
I am one of 25 million American veterans that won't mourn your passing.
(notice no one here wished you well, there is a reason fo that and it's not that they hate the troops, they all love the troops)
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Based on advice and new information offer withdrawn.
Free we both know you are a liar and so does most of the Unites States Air Force.
Post a Comment
<< Home