Hypocracy

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Both sides are guilty of it in fact we all are. Give me a good example of what you consider hypocracy by either or both sides.

Ill start with the price of gas. The left is screaming that the price of gas is going up and its the rights fault. Who is it who blocks the building of new refineries? Who is it that blocks drilling off shore? Who is it who blocks drilling in Alaska? Who is whos against building new nuclear power plants? And who has said that higher prices are to be sought even if it takes increased taxes to make it so? Well the answer to all of these is the left of course and as t the last Al Gore in particular. He wanted higher oil prices so that we would invest more in alternative fuels.
He sang a different tune in the election campain.

Gore: "I hope the prices come down quickly, and I'm going to make sure they do."

Bush: "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot and increase the supply."

Gore on his Bush: "My opponent comes out of the oil industry. His experience is as an oil company executive. He called for higher oil prices to boost the oil companies' profits."

Bush on his Gore: "It seems Mr. Gore is running from his own position. On the one hand, he calls for higher gas prices, but now suddenly when the heat is on and prices go up, he folds."

What does the left want higher prices so that we convert to another fuel or lower prices. As long as prices are low there will not be any rush for alternative fuels. So whats your answer? Arent the high prices a good thing in reality? Isnt that what you really want?

[Steppe Merc]

Well they would be good except for a few things.
A. I doubt any poltician is willing to seriously invest in alternative energy. We are quite far behind Europe in that regard. It is not hard to cover city buildings with solar panels, or create wind turbines. But it isn't being done.
B. Why the hell does it have to go up when I start to drive, damn it?
C. Whether or not it will lead to alternative energies, the oil companies are probably reaping the benifits.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A) Wind turbines kill birds. Lots of birds. They slice through birds like a,...well, like a giant metal blade spinning quickly through the air. And it's expensive. Solar is very dependent on the sun, and more expensive than naural gas/oil.

B) So you see the wisdom of opening Alaska to oil drilling.

C) Yes, oil companies are making huge, huge profits.

Crazed Rabbit

[Steppe Merc]

A. Yeah, and we've got a lot of sun, don't we? Big deal if it's expensive. It's easier than trying to rush and convert after we've run out of oil. My uncle had a house that was run primarily by solar power. Of course there was back up for the cloudy days.
About the turbines, I was not aware that birds are so attracted to them. Something needs to be done about that...
B. No, opening Alaska to drilling is wrong, and well... not nice. I'd rather shell out more money than condone the destruction of Alaskan wildlife.
C. Hah! I knew it.

Oh, and also, we can also run on organics. My cousin rigged his deisel pick up to run on McDonalds and Chinese food grease. Not sure how the government can promote that though.

For anyone intersted in alternative oil, I'd suggest a National Geographics a few issues back that had a very good articale listing the pros and cons of many different types.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A) Converting to large scale solar power would necessarily raise energy prices- hurting the poor, who can't afford it, most. And it would be better to wait until there is actually demand for new power- companies will invest more R&D in it and make better technologies.

B) Wrong? It would have an overall insignifigant impact. The drilling stations would be very small, oil pipelines would be made so as to not restrict wildlife, and they would not even use roads so as to minimize the impact. It would not 'destroy' the wildlife at all, while at the same time providing another fuel source. Do not let fanatics delude you into thinking that it would harm the wildlife.

C) My dad's in the oil business.

Good for your cousin. How much is oil grease?

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

Stop eating HFCS and use it to make ethanol.

[Red Harvest]

A) Converting to large scale solar power would necessarily raise energy prices- hurting the poor, who can't afford it, most. And it would be better to wait until there is actually demand for new power- companies will invest more R&D in it and make better technologies.

Wrong. It's actually affordable at today's prices. There are affordable housing units using solar power to *reduce* costs. The economic hurdle is in the initial investment, which is why govt incentives are needed to drive change. It is capital intensive (and risky if you think energry prices will fall.) Operational costs are quite low...you don't have to buy any fuel...just replace dying gear. If anything, the poor could benefit most.

You can get shingles now that are solar panels. The initial installation cost is high. The truth is, we could do a lot to reduce our CO2 emissions by making these sort of things affordable. When you cut electrical load, you back out natural gas and steam (but not oil for the most part.) Coal is hell on CO2 emissions.

C) My dad's in the oil business.

The oil companies were projecting about $27 to 28/bbl this time a few years ago--I know because I was looking at their numbers, shaking my head. I didn't believe them then, and I'm sure as heck not stupid enough to believe them now.

[bmolsson]

I think we have to get used to higher oil prices. It's wrong to blame high oil prices on any US president or president candidate. The Iraqi war might have speed up the price hike a bit, but today the consumption increase faster than the supply, so we just have to start working on alternatives...

[Red Harvest]

A) Wind turbines kill birds. Lots of birds. They slice through birds like a,...well, like a giant metal blade spinning quickly through the air. And it's expensive. Solar is very dependent on the sun, and more expensive than naural gas/oil.

Not that many actually, 1 to 2 per year per turbine is the U.S. estimate (and often less than that.)

Windows kill birds yet we haven't decided to take out all the windows or stop building structures with windows. Estimates for all building including houses range from 100 million to 1 billion birds/year.

The rate for a large turbine is about 2 birds per year. I hit about 1 per year driving (antennae clip them in the early evening typically.) Vehicles take out 60 to 80 million/yr.

Electrical transmissions lines take out ~130 to 174 million birds per year.

Wind Power Bird Kills in Perspective

Lots of other things like communication towers, pets, agriculture, etc.

B) So you see the wisdom of opening Alaska to oil drilling.

Nope, it's a snake oil solution to fool those who haven't looked through the numbers. It is very much like Bush's pledge in 2000/2001 to drill our way out of needing to do energy conservation. Some policy that was. Here we are threatening $70/bbl...falling behind even faster than before. The amount of ANWR production at its peak won't be able to keep up with our *increase* in consumption. It will be hard put to even keep up with the decline in production from existing fields. That is if you look at the current govt. estimates of what the field can produce.

I propose that the wise thing to do is to get everyone else to pump out all their oil first...makes ours much more valuable. I would rather make 10x as much 10 years later, rather than make 1x today. Strategic thinking doesn't get me very far in today's society though.

[Aenlic]

A)B) So you see the wisdom of opening Alaska to oil drilling.

There is just about enough oil under the Anwar to supply this country's gluttonous oil comsumption needs for... wait for it... 6 months. That's it. That's the whole shebang.

The problem isn't oil production. It's oil consumption. The U.S. is one of the world's leading producers of petrochemicals - already! We're the third largest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. But, because we have all of the self-control of a 4 year old in a toy store, we are also the world's largest consumer of petrochemical products. We consume more than 3 times more oil than the next largest countries, China and Japan. We consume more than twice what we produce; but if we cut our consumption down to just what the next largest consumer country uses each year, then our production capacity would allow us export about as much oil as Venezuela and make us somewhere around the 6th or 7th leading exporter of oil, fixing our trade deficit and a lot of other things. So our production can't meet our needs and we have to import massive amounts of oil from other countries. But we won't fix that problem. Because we just have to have our toys, like that 4 year old who wants it all.

So keep on driving that gas-guzzling SUV, it's doing wonders for our economy and our international relations. Think about the fact that more half of the gas you use comes from overseas suppliers. And consider that a significant portion of that amount from overseas comes from Saudi Arabia. And that a significant amount of the profit from the purchase from Saudi Arabia goes into the hands of members of the royal family who then send a portion of that to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. What could possibly be more stupid?

If we fix our consumption, we'd turn our economy from a debtor nation in trade to an exporter nation with a trade surplus. Duh uh. But I'll bet we don't do it. We'd rather get that gleam in our eyes and say "gimme! gimme! I want!"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Blaming it on the left won't work. They've been far closer to being accurate on this than the right.

Baloney. Are you telling me groups like Greenpeace and the Seirra club are rightwing organizations? Is it the right who opposes more drilling. Is it they who oppose building new refineries and nuclear plants.Lets have a little intellectual honesty here shall we.

They don't think "conservation" is a dirty word for starters.

No thats all they can think of instead of increasing supply.

We've been using your policy for a long time.

Man speaking of hypocracy. Hows that? You mean weve been using your policy for a longtime. It has led to the higher prices and thats the point. Come gentlemen at least admit its hypocrital of the left to complain that Bush has caused oil prices to rise when one, they want higher prices and two they are the cause of it and three they continue to limit supply through legislation.

At least Ichi got the point of this thread. I didnt want t to be a debate about oil but about hypocracy. The right is no better off on this matter. The republicans claim to be for smaller government and fisical responsiblity yet Bush has been spending money like a drunken sailor and the government just keeps getting bigger and more intrusive. This is what Im talking about. I want your examples of hypocracy not a long dragged out debate over oil. Weve done that countless times before.

[Steppe Merc]

Thank you Red Harvest for your assistance.

Oh, natraul grease was free for my cousin. The food places just gave it too him. Of course, if more people use it, they might start charging for it. But somehow, I doubt too many people will jump on the band wagon.

Gawain, you are probably right, it is a bit unfair to blame soley Bush. But can I blame the people who refuse to go to logical alternative energies for not converting?

Ok, let me think of a hypocracy... Oh, ok. I don't want to start a whole big argument, but I don't understand how a place can claim to have a culture of life for just preventing abortions while executing criminals and being in wars.

[Red Harvest]

Baloney. Are you telling me groups like Greenpeace and the Seirra club are rightwing organizations? Is it the right who opposes more drilling. Is it they who oppose building new refineries and nuclear plants.Lets have a little intellectual honesty here shall we.

Ok, I'll give you some brutal honesty. This seems to have gone so far over your head that it is comical. You still don't get it. Refineries aren't the issue (We can and do add capacity as we need it. The lack of a big gap between refined products and oil refutes the refinery bottleneck theory.) Opposing drilling isn't it either, drilling our way out doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You are busy chasing wild geese rather than looking at the problem with intellectual honesty. The easy to extract (and refine) oil is being depleted faster than it can be replaced, meanwhile global demand has accelerated.

Man speaking of hypocracy. Hows that? You mean weve been using your policy for a longtime. It has led to the higher prices and thats the point. Come gentlemen at least admit its hypocrital of the left to complain that Bush has caused oil prices to rise when one, they want higher prices and two they are the cause of it and three they continue to limit supply through legislation.

Considering the Republicans have had control for several years and have set the "energy policy" without input from the other side who they clearly snubbed, we'll just label this theory: MYTH BUSTED. Myopia, that's the problem. Consumers of all political affiliations think they gave some Constitutional guarrantee of cheap gas, somewhere in the Bill or Rights perhaps. Short sighted thinking has been the norm and political leadership plays to that. Those presently in charge are doing a great deal to illustrate the evils of short term thinking. Look at oil, look at Iraq, look at the national debt, look at the trade deficit, look at health care costs.

By the way, it is spelled "hypocrisy."

[Red Harvest]

Bith sides are guilty of it in fact we all are. Give me a good examole of what you consider hypocracy by either or both sides.

Ill start with the price of gas. The left is screaming that the price of gas is going up and its the rights fault. Who is it who blocks the building of new refineries? Who is it that blocks drilling off shore? Who is it who blocks drilling in Alaska? Who is whos against building new nuclear power plants? And who has said that higher prices are to be sought even if it takes increased taxes to make it so? Well the answer to all of these is the left of course and as t the last Al Gore in particular. He wanted higher oil prices so that we would invest more in alternative fuels.
He sang a different tune in the election campain.



What does the left want higher prices so that we convert to another fuel or lower prices. As long as prices are low there will not be any rush for alternative fuels. So whats your answer? Arent the high prices a good thing in reality? Isnt that what you really want?

The nation as a whole has nobody to blame but themselves. I've been bothered about the U.S. obsession with cheap energy for years. We've been sitting here living off the reserves, without planning properly for when those reserves start to deplete. It was nice and comfortable, but like all parties, we knew it couldn't last forever. There are greenies who resist wind and solar, LOL. Nuke isn't really an option until we are willing to accept the disposal responsibilities--not to mention how freakin' expensive it is.

Blaming it on the left won't work. They've been far closer to being accurate on this than the right. They don't think "conservation" is a dirty word for starters. Howver, both sides do pander to the gasoline price watchers, consumers without the first clue as to what is going on.

The best thing for us right now is a good old fashioned scare, we've been complacent and 90% of the public doesn't have the first clue as to where our electricity, nat. gas, oil, and gasoline come from. Shock people into realizing wishful thinking isn't going to get us to where we need to be. ANWR is literally a drop in the bucket. The problem is scaring voters only works if they believe you, and our voters have been deluded for too long.

It isn't a big problem yet. We've had our warning, the first true demand based global oil run up (rather than supply restriction.) Now are we going to roll up our sleaves and get ready for where we need to be in 10 or 20 years? Or are we going to continue to deny the problem until it really has us by the short and curlies? I think we'll deny it, unless some charismatic leader comes along and grabs public attention. Perot did it with budget deficits...and it worked until Dubya took office.

What do we need? MAJOR incentives to invest in alternate energy and conservation. Major research programs to provide the tech and LONGTERM solutions. We should lead, not follow. How do you fund it? Non-renewable energy taxes. That funds the work and investment from the very source of the problem. You also drive conservation that way. Is it going to be disruptive in the short term for some? You bet.

[Xiahou]

What do we need? MAJOR incentives to invest in alternate energy and conservation. Major research programs to provide the tech and LONGTERM solutions. We should lead, not follow. How do you fund it? Non-renewable energy taxes. That funds the work and investment from the very source of the problem. You also drive conservation that way. Is it going to be disruptive in the short term for some? You bet.

That's your typical tax and spend liberalism for you. Got a problem? The government can solve it by raising your taxes!

Anyhow, you're proposing to solve high energy prices by adding taxes to the prices? Interesting. Too bad gasoline is already heavily taxed- what, about 30 cents a gallon? (varies by state, ect) It's not like we're going to wake up one morning and suddenly be out of oil. As supply shrinks and demand grows the prices will continue to rise until people become less and less willing to pay them. Instead, they start looking to buy alternatives. It's not that there aren't viable alternatives out there, it's just that they still aren't cost effective and prices for gasoline, ect aren't high enough to make people switch. When that happens, it'll be in the industry's best interests to cater to the consumer- there's no reason to fund it with even more corporate welfare.

Were it up to me, I'd cut the federal tax on gasoline by 50% or more. It was setup to fund the Interstate highway system, which is complete. Currently the gas tax is just a slush fund for politicians to use to bring home pork to buy votes with.

[Red Harvest]

That's your typical tax and spend liberalism for you. Got a problem? The government can solve it by raising your taxes!

Anyhow, you're proposing to solve high energy prices by adding taxes to the prices? Interesting. Too bad gasoline is already heavily taxed- what, about 30 cents a gallon? (varies by state, ect) It's not like we're going to wake up one morning and suddenly be out of oil. As supply shrinks and demand grows the prices will continue to rise until people become less and less willing to pay them. Instead, they start looking to buy alternatives. It's not that there aren't viable alternatives out there, it's just that they still aren't cost effective and prices for gasoline, ect aren't high enough to make people switch. When that happens, it'll be in the industry's best interests to cater to the consumer- there's no reason to fund it with even more corporate welfare.

Aaahhhh, predictable, but I'm not a tax and spend liberal. I do believe in Manhattan projects and Apollo projects though. Those are the sort of things that have put us where we are...as opposed to stick your head in the sand isolationists.

We've been using your policy for a long time. You can choose to follow the world if you like. I would prefer to lead. What you propose is to wait for prices to really hammer the economy and become unbearable, then react. It is one approach, but it means you will be getting your tech from somebody else, not from the U.S. It makes your own economy weaker than your competitors, because your *investments* over the past decades will have been misplaced. I would rather pay $1 today to save $2 tomorrow, but that's just me.

30 cents a gallon...whoooooopppeeeeeee. Now if fuel efficiency were improved by 10% not only would that 30 cents per gallon be covered...but the PRICE itself would be lower (look up the elasticity of energy and gasoline demand.)

Were it up to me, I'd cut the federal tax on gasoline by 50% or more. It was setup to fund the Interstate highway system, which is complete. Currently the gas tax is just a slush fund for politicians to use to bring home pork to buy votes with.

LOL, ever been to Houston? Complete??? Take a drive down I-10 some time...any time. You have to maintain the system, and it is continuously expanded as population continues to grow. Much of the highway system in the U.S. is seriously underfunded with regards to maintenance and improvements.

Saving 15 cents per gallon...ooooooooohhhhh...that would help...not at all? It would actually drive higher prices long term.

[ichi]

I think that the biggest hypocrasy occurring in this country today is this idea that we need to give the government incredible powers in order to keep our freedoms.

Second is the idea that we must support the current administration in order to patriotic.

ichi

ps regarding fuel: in order to protect American independence shouldn't we keep our oil and use up the oil of all the other countries? Save ours for last?

[Red Harvest]

ps regarding fuel: in order to protect American independence shouldn't we keep our oil and use up the oil of all the other countries? Save ours for last?

Yep, that's what I've been saying. I believe we can drill in the ANWR safely enough...but I would rather other countries pumped their oil first so that we still have reserves when others have depleted reservoirs. I don't object to ANWR drilling on environmental grounds, but on economic reasoning. And more importantly because it is used to mask the real problem.

Stupid me, I've always been a saver/investor rather than a spender. Must be the Scot in me. I'm not doing my part to support the short term, "live-beyond-your-means," consumption driven economic model.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Soaring oil prices have revived the old bogeyman that the world is running out of oil. Economics is a great field for nostalgia buffs because the same old fallacies keep coming back, like golden oldies in music.

Back in 1960, a best-selling book titled "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard showed that the known reserves of petroleum in the United States were only enough to last another 13 years at the current rate of usage. Yet, 13 years later, the United States had larger known reserves of petroleum than in 1960.

This has been a worldwide phenomenon. At the end of the 20th century, the known reserves of petroleum in the world were more than ten times what they were in the middle of the 20th century -- despite an ever-growing use of oil.

.

No matter how many centuries' supply of oil there is on the planet, the high cost of oil exploration ensures that only the most minute fraction of that oil will be known at any given time. Thus there have long been recurring false predictions that we were running out of petroleum, as well as other natural resources.

The high cost of extracting and processing oil ensures that not even half of the oil in a known pool of oil will be brought to the surface and sent off to the refineries.

A generation ago, only about a quarter of the oil in a pool was likely to be brought to the surface. That is because the cost of extracting and processing oil from a given pool tends to increase as you drain from deeper into that pool.

Even at $60 a barrel, most of the oil that is known to exist is too costly to extract. How much will be extracted depends on how much higher the price of oil goes -- and how much new technology can recover more oil at lower costs.

What if the government did nothing about oil prices? Rising prices would lead people to reduce their use of oil and lead producers to drain some of the more costly oil out of the ground.
An oil 'crisis'?: part II

Once more there is no shortage of oil. There is only a shortage of profitable oil and even thats debatable. The enviormentalist are whats behind the high cost of oil. The left should be celebrating higher oil prices not bashing Bush for it.

[Red Harvest]

Once more there is no shortage of oil. There is only a shortage of profitable oil and even thats debatable. The enviormentalist are whats behind the high cost of oil. The left should be celebrating higher oil prices not bashing Bush for it.

Why should anyone celebrate a policy based on remaining behind the curve? It is reactive government. Typical of Dubya's admin though. Blecchhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! I've seen the same in industry and by folks with the same political viewpoint: folks who can't tell the difference between being ahead or behind of the trends. When you are behind with a resource with inelastic demand curves you get spikes, and you experience tremendous lag. Even if oil can be produced to fill the growing demand (and it can) it means that less financially viable sources (higher production and exploration cost) need copious justification before they commit. That produces serious LAG my friend. LAG is a DRAG on the global economy. It means higher prices and slower economic growth. Do you want that? I don't.

"Shortage of profitable oil?" That means the price is too low to support current demand because we are using too much and the SUPPLY is not there to support it. In otherwords the price is going to keep going up because we can't meet demand at today's prices.

The article is referring to price controls, and rebutting the popular political concept of price controls as they are nonsensical. He is right about that.

The one thing that stands out when you compare this oil run up to others, is that it is demand driven, not supply driven. That is what has changed.

The environmentalists did not drive up demand. Nor did the left. Most of the supply is outside the U.S. so if you believe environmentalists have been the problem there, you must be on shrooms.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why should anyone celebrate a policy based on remaining behind the curve?

Because the are against the use of fossil fuels. They care more about the enviorment. They could care less what the price of oil is other than the higher the better.. Thats why I called this thread hypocracy.

[Steppe Merc]

Well yes, the environment is more important than oil prices.

[Red Harvest]

Because the are against the use of fossil fuels. They care more about the enviorment. They could care less what the price of oil is other than the higher the better.. Thats why I called this thread hypocracy.

I assumed you spelled it "hypocracy" as a play on words...as if it were a style of govt...theocracy, autocracy, democracy...and the current administration would be the "hyprocracy."

Your cutesy attempt to point the other way aside, the folks you gripe about wanting alternative energy development and conservation are being progressive, while the approach you embrace is regressive. Progress is trying to develop for the future need, rather than ignoring developing events. You want to invest more in early 20th century tech, while many of us see more potential in investing in later 20th century tech.

After all, it is amusing that you will say we need to be drilling like mad in one sentence, and then in another say this is a refining issue and there is no shortage of oil. Those are contradictory statements.

What is so awful about developing solar, wind, and other technology (including long range fusion work.) Seems a lot more intelligent to be investing in these than in a declining resource. What is so awful about improving energy efficiency? We trumpet productivity improvements as driving our economy, why can't other efficiencies also improve it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Your cutesy attempt to point the other way aside, the folks you gripe about wanting alternative energy development and conservation are being progressive

Well Im one of them.

while the approach you embrace is regressive

Oh so increasing supply is now considered regressive?

You want to invest more in early 20th century tech, while many of us see more potential in investing in later 20th century tech.

I want to use what works now and plan for the future.

After all, it is amusing that you will say we need to be drilling like mad in one sentence, and then in another say this is a refining issue and there is no shortage of oil. Those are contradictory statements.

Somday yhou will wake up and realise this is a balancing act. The reason they dont drill more is because they couldnt refine it anyway. We need to both drill and build new refineries,

What is so awful about developing solar, wind, and other technology (including long range fusion work.)

Nothing again Im all for it.

Seems a lot more intelligent to be investing in these than in a declining resource.

First off we have to live now. Secondly once more there is plenty of oil left. We havent even gotten half of it yet at best.

We trumpet productivity improvements as driving our economy, why can't other efficiencies also improve it?

They can but let the market drive it.

Do you think we suddenly started running out of oil around a year ago? Oil is a commodity and its pricwe is whatever they think they can get away wiith. Their predicting shortages in supply and thats why the prices are going up just like they did in the 70s when we were "running out of oil"

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And what I keep trying to tell you is that even if we tap into the oil shale and the other as yet inaccessible sources then all you've done is doubled the available reserves. So instead of 40 years, we're talking 80 years and that's if we can suck up every possible drop and the current consumption rate remains unchanged!

And Im telling you your wrong. Again they said this years ago and we keep finding more. Again its just a matter of making it profitable to extract and find. Besides that in 80 years Im sure we will be consuming far less. If we were really running out of oil we would be doing a lot more about it. You want to believe the oil companies who are making this extra profit that their telling you their running out of product LOL. Heck thats one of my favorite sales pitches. Hey I only have two left you better grap one.

Stick your head in the sand, poke your fingers in your ears. You want to go on PRETENDING that there is no problem

I never said that. I know theres only so much oil and I said we need to develope alternative enrgy. My point is leave it to the market and science and not to the government. Have a little faith in humanity.

[Ser Clegane]

You want to believe the oil companies who are making this extra profit that their telling you their running out of product LOL.

Actually IIRC oil companies even tend to overstate their reserves.

Royal Dutch/Shell had to correct the value of their reserves downwards and received the appropriate reactions on the stock market.

So to say that oil companies play dramatize the situation it oversimplifying the situation a little bit.

[Red Harvest]

I never said that. I know theres only so much oil and I said we need to develope alternative enrgy. My point is leave it to the market and science and not to the government. Have a little faith in humanity.

Rather than actively do something to address the problem, you want me to pray? Wish for the best? Hope folks realize what is happening before it actually occurs...like the most recent run up? I can't find any basis for having such faith in humanity at the moment.

This is the sort of problem where the role of government can be very positive in priming the market and development. Government is there to deal with the bigger issues that we can't prepare for with out it (defense, infrastructure, etc.) Govt has been the key component behind the build out of infrastructure. What we are talking about is not a welfare system for energy, but instead a strategic shift in investment and research. It depends on market and business, but the govt needs to help along the process so that we have things as they are needed, rather than later. With energy, the economic cost of responding late is huge because of the relative inelasticity. Especially when you already run a massive trade deficit...

The result of what you suggest is that we suffer the consequences of being behind, and that would work as your market driver. As I've pointed out, business will *respond*...later, not by being there waiting for us to catch up to them. They want the market clearly established and there before they invest. Government doesn't have to act that way. Even if we start to behave pro-actively, it won't help shift fleet fuel efficiency all that much for about 5 years. Ditto for major industry fuel efficiency--efficiency improvement in the short term usually comes from folks actually shutting down, becasue they can't afford to operate anymore. My approach differs in that I would prefer that we try to keep up or get in front of the problem, rather than chasing it.

The inelasticity of energy demand is largely absent from the "oil supply is not a problem" articles. Instead the articles say: demand will decline if prices rise, therefore producing self correction. They simply ignore the well known inelasticty of energy demand. I can't take such articles seriously.

What really happens when oil prices rise dramatically? From what I've seen looking at global growth and contraction is that *growth* in demand halts, but not so much the base usage. The base usage doesn't tend to shrink, at least not on the short scale of a year or two...despite doubling or tripling or more of prices.

[Strike For The South]

The oil cant be gone it needs to hold out for a couple of months just till I get my lisnce and my truck