As a counter point what have the GOP done to remedy this???????
While the price was lower there were plenty of forecasts about the increase in demand coming.
Flopping Aces: Placing Blame For The Price of Gas
This is some damning information that should be shared with every newspaper and voter in this country.
As a counter point what have the GOP done to remedy this???????
While the price was lower there were plenty of forecasts about the increase in demand coming.
The policies espoused by Democrats, with the aid of their “environmentalist”, lead directly to higher gasoline prices. And as the latest snub at the consumer, they won’t even go for a moratorium on the federal gas tax.
This article is a bit short in the reality department.
Americans get the oil and gas prices they deserve.
“Probably that’s because most people don’t realize how different the two parties’ energy policies have been.”
Just another huge example of what a handicap it is having a president who cannot clearly and firmly articulate the policies he supports, and the harm done by the policies advocated by the Dems. There are tremendous political points to be scored now explaining how the Dems. have made it impossible for the US to bring significant new energy resources into the supply line. But few points are being scored for the Republicans.
And, in their great wisdom, some 38% of Republicans have nominated another candidate with little more ability to articulate policy differences and their consequences. Except the policy differences are even fewer if he wins. He’s made significant contributions to our current dependence on imported oil, and is more in line with the Dems. than with the Republicans on energy policy.
If I recall correctly, Al Gore said in, “Earth in the Balance” that $5 gas would be good for the environment.
At the time he said it, it was inconceivable.
bookmark
Sure, the Dims are largely culpable by stifling drilling, refinement, and nuclear. But the GOP has its share of sins, too.
Until we realize this and fix those, we will lose to the Dims.
We need to relabel ourselves as the FULL package for energy independence:
* Hearken back to the personal courage we all had in WWII, and embrace conserving energy. What exactly is the rationale for letting the liberals own this? A major mistake from Bush and Cheney is the failure to call for national will and sacrifice in the wake of 9/11. What’s more conservative than the “waste not want not” of our Dads and Grandads, “is this trip necessary”. Less demand equals more supply.
* Incentivize energy innovation, from the new, safe nuclear plants, to the great new car technologies, to alternative fuels and sources. Enlist Dean Kamen to head up an energy innovation task force to jump-start the process.
* Use the global warming hysteria to beat back the envirowhackos on land-use for geo-thermal and hydro power. The concerns of the purple-spotted stink beetle are pretty trivial in comparison to The Fate of The Planet[tm]. If we played this one smart, we could start to dismantle a huge part of needlessly restrictive land-use laws.
* A concept: The New Victory Gardens. Solar panel and wind aerial tax credits for each home where it is viable to do so. Popularizing and removing ridiculous restrictions on fryer grease re-use for vehicles kit-built to take it (did you know that do to idiotic laws restaurants CANNOT give away the grease to those who want it for fuel but must instead throw it away).
* On top of this, our core issues: increased drilling, refinement. With all of the other initiatives in tow, the Dims will be exposed as the party of energy slavery, and we will be the solution.
What do you think?
Plenty of blame to go around. Democrats by deed, Republicans by lack of conviction and cojones when they were in power.
Rhetorical thoughts for discussion however:
Should not the free marketeers amongst us be cheering for $5.00 a gallon gasoline and higher?
Will not the invisible hand of supply and demand force America to be weaned from petroleum energy dependence?
Would this not make America more secure and open economic growth in alternate energy resources and technology?
The transistion would be painful for all and cruel to many, but is our current energy price crisis a blessing in disguise?
Your opinions and flames are welcome!
Posted on 06/07/2008 12:08:06 PM PDT by DaveTesla
Politically Contrived
Gasoline Shortage
CRAIG S. MARXSEN
The 1972 book The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) sensationalized
the theory that natural-resource depletion and rising pollution would soon
bring catastrophe. The authors theorized that, among other problems, running
out of basic resources such as petroleum would cause a collapse of industrial and
agricultural production as well as a resulting loss of a large part of the world’s human
population. An “energy crisis” immediately following the book’s publication enhanced
its credibility and brought it a great deal of public attention, although the
energy crisis later proved to have been only a temporary anomaly caused largely by
price controls. Recent, substantial increases in gasoline prices may revitalize the catastrophists’
conviction that imminent fossil-resource exhaustion demands prompt substitution
of renewable fuel sources, such as ethanol. Convinced that because fossil
fuels apparently are nearly exhausted as a practical energy source and we can abandon
them almost costlessly, opponents of fossil fuels advocate drastic reduction of their use
to prevent a ruinous crisis of carbon dioxide pollution. Yet the alleged crisis requires
a near-zero discount rate to raise the prorated present value of damage, per gallon of
gasoline combusted, far above the relatively modest figure obtained by use of a market
interest rate for discounting purposes.
A more serious potential economic crisis caused by rising motor-fuel prices, in
contrast, does not spring from pollution or resource exhaustion, but from the catastrophists’
mistaken belief in what has become their almost self-fulfilling prophecy
(see Marxsen 2003). Through the political system, they have promoted regulatory
actions that are discouraging the investment that would otherwise have prevented
today’s worsening refining bottleneck. Obstruction of investments in gasoline refineries,
achieved by regulatory interventions, is probably a more significant threat to the
affordability of gasoline than any approaching exhaustion of gasoline’s fossil sources.
Reestablishment of refiners’ reasonable property rights and adoption of strict liability
as the major instrument for controlling carbon dioxide and refinery pollution might
end what otherwise may become an ever-worsening, regulatory-induced “energy
crisis.”
The Price Mechanism
Robert Solow responded promptly to The Limits to Growth. He explained that the
price mechanism would induce substitution of alternative sources as oil became
scarcer (1973, 44–47). Production methods that rely on relatively more abundant
natural resources eventually will substitute for dwindling supplies of oil that had
previously been cheap and easy to exploit (Solow 1974, 3–5). Now, more than thirty
years later, specific forms of such substitution have become more visible to those
looking ahead toward practical alternatives.
Although crude oil still appears to be relatively abundant and supplies most of
the world’s material from which gasoline is refined, other fossil sources of gasoline
seem to offer commercially viable alternatives. These sources include methane (or
natural gas), coal, bitumen obtained from tar sands or oil shale, and crude petroleum’s
“bottom of the barrel” components, such as asphalt. Let us ignore nonfossil feedstocks,
such as corn and turkey guts, because they escape political opposition from
opponents of fossil fuels and, in any event, have potential to make only a small
contribution to present rates of gasoline consumption. Because available stocks of
petroleum, methane, coal, tar sands, and oil shale are sufficient for centuries to come,
however, the possibility of sustaining supplies of ordinary gasoline for motor fuel at
reasonable prices appears virtually assured, regardless of nonfossil sources, if the political
system will permit. Conversely, a complete transition to nonfossil sources at this
time would doubtlessly result in much higher gasoline prices.
Fossil-Energy Sufficiency
A great deal of fossil-fuel material remains buried in accessible places. In the U.S.
Department of Energy’s International Energy Outlook 2006, world energy use is
projected to rise from 421 quadrillion Btus, or “quads,” in 2003 to 722 quads in
2030 (2006b, 1). Paul Holtberg, director of the Demand and Integration Division of
the U. S. Department of Energy, and Robert Hirsch, a senior energy program advisor
at Science Applications International Corporation, estimate that 13,400 quads of
conventional crude oil and 14,000 quads of conventional natural gas remain exploitable.
At least another 15,000 quads are available from unconventional sources of
crude oil, such as tar sands and oil shale. In the lower forty-eight states of the United
States, geopressured brine and gas hydrates may offer as much as 335,000 quads,
according to Holtberg and Hirsch (2003). Bob Williams (2003a), former executive
editor of the Oil and Gas Journal, reports a global methane hydrate endowment more
than 190 times the amount in the United States. Worldwide coal resources exceed
135,000 quads, according to Holtberg and Hirsch. At the 2003 rate of global energy
use, and not counting the geopressured brine and methane hydrate endowment
outside the lower forty-eight states, such fossil-fuel reserves would apparently last
more than 1,200 years, and they would last more than 700 years at the projected 2030
rate of consumption. Moreover, Holtberg and Hirsch’s estimates seem to be conservative
ones. David L. Greene, Janet L. Hopson, and Jia Li estimate in a report
prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Oak Ridge National Laboratory that
the world’s remaining supply of exploitable oil (including that from shale and tar
sands) is about 106,572.2 quads, with about 32,885.6 quads recoverable under
technologies and prices expected to prevail before 2050 (2003, 9). Thus, fossil hydrocarbons
for making gasoline and other liquid fuels will almost certainly be adequate
for centuries to come. The real obstacle is the world’s political systems.
Obstructing Refining
Government interventions have constrained the petroleum-refining industry for decades.
A 2004 U.S. Department of Energy National Petroleum Council report documents
a variety of impediments to expansion of refining capacity. Not a single new-site
refinery has been built in the United States since the mid-1970s (Shackouls 2004,
I-19). From 1981 to 2002, the average return on equity for petroleum companies was
11.3 percent, and the S&P 500 average was 12.2 percent (I-14). The return on capital
employed in refining and marketing was only 5.3 percent, compared with a return on
capital of 7.7 percent for the industry as a whole (I-14). The low returns reportedly
derive from significant regulatory-driven investments that yield no return, combined
with the highly competitive nature of the business (I-16). Building a new refinery
involves a huge investment and is therefore subject to tremendous losses from any
delays. Environmental regulation—including New Source Review enforcement and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards—and uncertainties generated by waivers,
exceptions, and amendments to regulations create strong disincentives for investment
in new refineries (I-6). Ben Lieberman (2006), a senior policy analyst at the Heritage
Foundation, contends that as much as 25 percent of total capital outlays in the
refining sector are devoted to environmental regulatory compliance. Ever-changing
specifications for reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel frustrate refiners’ efforts
to achieve maximum volumetric efficiency during peak demand periods and further
reduce the return on an investment in a new refinery (Shackouls 2004, I-18). The
government’s obstructions of the use of carbon fuels somewhat resembles its more
visible prevention of the expansion of nuclear power in spite of engineering advances
that have almost totally eliminated the more significant nuclear-safety issues that once
seemed relevant.
The potential for regulatory harassment may make refiners with less-thanextraordinary
prospective profits unwilling to remain in business in coming years. In
a 2002 report, Jerry Hill, principal environmental engineer at Bechtel’s Houston
office, illustrates what had then become a strategy emphasized by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
had increased its focus on petroleum refineries, and inspection teams made a
number of detailed audits, each spending many days searching for violations of federal
and state pollution regulations. These armies of fault-finding inspectors compiled and
submitted to the U.S. Justice Department and filed in district federal courts long lists
of alleged violations of pollution laws. At the top of Hill’s list of violations was failure
to obtain construction permits, failure to install the best available control technology,
and flaring gas that contained sulfur. Other violations included insufficient labeling of
containers and inadequate record keeping. Hill describes the prompt and costly defeat
of a refiner who decided to go to trial. Thirty-six refineries in nineteen states settled
these actions for the most part with negotiated consent decrees that involved millions
of dollars for remedial expenditures and additional millions for payment of fines. The
consent decrees typically remained in force for years. Hill notes that such actions
against refiners “have made them subject to additional standards and regulatory supervision
without the typical rule-making process.” He describes settlements as “giving
the EPA joint dominion with several owners in the daily operation of a number
of refineries” (2002, 76). Affected refineries account for about one-third of U.S.
capacity. Fines ranging up to $10 million went to the U.S. government, with a
sizeable portion going to the regulatory agency involved. Hill’s report is not a polemic
to sway public opinion, but only a descriptive article in the trade journal Hydrocarbon
Processing. To an industry outsider, however, the account raises suspicion of an abuse
of regulatory authority for the purpose of obtaining, by extortion, nearly unqualified
pledges of compliance with bureaucrats’ dictates that are unbounded by statutory
limitations.
Al Gore’s near victory in the 2000 presidential election suggests that opponents
of fossil fuels continue to gain political traction. When subsequently asked what he
would have done differently had he won the election, Gore told George Stephanopoulos,
“I would have urged the Congress and done my best to lead the country
to take on this climate crisis, become independent of carbon-based fossil fuels as
quickly as we can, to shift toward conservation, efficiency and renewable energy”
(Stephanopoulos 2006). With this expressed ambition, Gore presumably represents a
powerful segment of the voting public that political candidates of both major parties
seem increasingly willing to placate. This tendency suggests an increasingly effective
influence of the voters lying between the median and the extreme, individuals for
whom, as John Brätland observes, “environmental enjoyment may be impossible as
long as the petroleum industry continues to exist” (2004, 530).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One has to wonder..
Does Gore and his crowd sit around in the evening and toast their glasses of Chablis while laughing hysterically at us?
Truth is we have more energy, particularly hydrocarbon fuels than we know what to do with.
Arresting man's development and controlling the population (serfs) is what this really about.
From The Article:
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/415215
(A must read as gas to liquid processes can use these reserves with a short time to market)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2027596/posts
I also blame the spinelessness of certain recent Republican leaders.
The one, laser-sharp, defining issue that ALL Republican candidates for offices at every level could use to make the differences between themselves and their Democrat rivals unmistakably clear, and the one that could get them elected, even if it were only to the office of dogcatcher, is to hammer on this policy of forcing an artificial scarcity upon the American public, with the intention of keeping energy prices at historically high levels.
The artificial restrictions (on drilling, refining, and siting fuel stations) added to resistance to exploiting other forms of fossil or certain kinds of renewable energy, and now this carbon “cap and trade” scheme, which is a form or rationing, or even limitation to growth, are all aimed at denying YOU, the individual, the right to expand and attain the kind of wealth that is held up as a paragon of some kind, else why would anybody admire a rock star? It is because the rock star is RICH, among his (or her) other charms, and certainly not because of moral superiority or a clever intellect.
It is one thing to be poor by choice, but to be poor because of an enforced policy, is no better than involuntary servitude, always at the mercy of the controllers of access to energy, condemned for years if not a lifetime, of always being beholden to another without ever having had a choice in the matter.
One choice that SHOULD be made available, is the right to vote for this economic freedom. But so far, the Republicans seem unwilling to offer the option, or if they do, they are reluctant to press the advantage.
It will be interesting to see what happens in May 2009 when gas goes up as it always does in May. Will they blame Bush? Will they blame Republicans?
Most likely, the media will totally ignore the price rise.
Just like the phony CA energy crisis, it’ll take about 4-5 years after the torture of the $5 a gallon gas to find the REAL culprits.
http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/GAS_TAX_MAP_JANUARY_2008_2.pdf
Map of current taxes per gallon in each state
Yeah facts are such inconvenient things are they not?
There you are all set up for a good “why I hate the GOP” rant only to discover the facts do not bear out your dogma. Sucks to be you.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200719.html