166. A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
We've heard a lot from the peak oil pessimists about the impossibility of conservation in the U.S., but the times they are a-changin'. It's interesting that Christians and conservatives are playing a key role in this process.
Senate Group Unveils Oil-Saving Plan
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2005
WASHINGTON - Efforts to stem America's appetite for oil, nearly two-thirds of it imported, are getting new attention in Congress with a push from an unusual coalition of environmentalists, evangelical Christians and conservatives.
The diverse groups are putting pressure on lawmakers to find ways to curtail oil use, especially in transportation, and to promote alternative fuels and new technologies less dependent on fossil fuels.
Environmentalists view reduced oil use as a way to curtail pollution and lower the risk of climate change. A number of conservatives and others argue the dependence on oil imports poses a security threat.
Both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans in Congress are listening.
A bipartisan group of senators unveiled legislation Wednesday they said would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day within a decade and 10 million barrels a day by 2031. The country now uses a little over 20 million barrels of oil a day, most of for transportation.
"Failure to act, we fear, will make America like a pitiful giant, tied down and subject to the whims of small (oil-producing) countries," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., calling U.S. dependence on foreign oil a national security risk.Source
-- by JD
posted by JD @ 4:59 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Please don't underestimate the importance of driving fuel efficient vehicles. By switching to European and Japanese style fuel efficient cars, the USA could cut its crude oil consumption by millions of barrels per day within a decade. The best way to achieve this and many other goals would be raise motor fuel taxes gradually. US automakers and the public would have to be given time to adjust to more expensive fuel.
Higher fuel taxes would simultaneously spur investements into more fuel efficient technology, force people to cut down on wasteful driving, boost multi-purpose zoning, restrict sprawl leading to long commutes, and considerably improve US trade balance.
If the average American was made aware exactly what the extra costs of that cheap gasoline were they might not object to a tax on it.
After all, we spend the bulk of our defense budget securing oil supply lines, we put our economy at risk with supply so tightly close to demand, a shitload of people die each year in auto accidents (if the roads weren't so congested it wouldn't be as bad), and new city planning continues to emphasize sprawl over smart planning.
I consider myself an average American, and after learning the facts am more than willing to pay a tax on gasoline (hell since learning the facts I drive 1/10 as much as I used to, the bus is now my friend)
I think raising gasoline tax is the only good approach. Any way you look at it, it is a supply and demand thing. Since the supply can not go up, the demand MUST go down. The demand can not be reduced volunteerily, there is only one thing to force a demand reduction (or demand destruction), namely, raising cost of gasoline.
The cost of gasoline is mainly composed of two parts: government tax plus the big oil profit. It doesn't matter which of the two parts contribute more on the total cost, the demand destruction will respond only to the figure of total cost.
A good thing is by heavy taxation, it does not increase the total cost. Since the total cost will only increase to the point where demand is suppressed enough. The end result is more money flow into the pocket of the Feds instead of big oil. The reverse is also true, by reducing tax, the gasoline cost will NOT be reduced, it merely help the big oil to profit more. So I would support heavy taxation, knowing that at least my money does not go into the pocket of big oil.
Quantoken
Chris:
The point is eliminating tax would NOT make the gasoline any cheaper. The price will simply go high again until enough demand is suppressed, and more money end up flowing into the pockets of big oil. I'd rather see the money being collected as tax so it can be used on something good.
Now what do we do with the money. Expanding roads would leads to less road congestion, which is good for fuel economy. You argue that will encourage vehicle usage. I don't think so. People have to drive NOT because there is road and they drive for fun.
Basically you are suggesting to use the inconvenience of congested roads hence inefficient usage of gasoline, as a mean to suppress consumption, rather than use high price. That's not smart at all.
Certainly the tax money can be better used for alternative energy source research. But that's another story.
In the medium-long term, expanding roads always leads to more driving and more congestion (and more oil use). If you can find one decent road scheme that has reduced traffic let us all know.
Or... according to Dr. Stanley Monteith, Peak Oil is a myth...
http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley.htm
JD, why are you debunking a myth and we're not talking about the doomer myth, but PO in the geological sense.
Chris:
Your assertions are totally false. People drive on the roads not because they want to have fun in driving or because it's free. They have to get to work, do shopping etc. And pricing do work in the supply/demand scenary. But people do consider all things: congestions, time, price, safety. If there is public transportation solutions that costs less time and less money, I don't see why people would not want to choose them. If it takes two hours to get to work between bus changes and walking, then I would rather prefer a congested highway which gets me there in one hour.
Forcing people to abandon driving altogether and sit and stay at home instead of going to work, is not a solution.
You do not see road expansion relief road congestion fully because we have a limited amount of tax money and only the worst congestion gets prioritized to be reliefed, and the relief can only be partial. However such money spent saves much more than the investment in saved gasoline in reduced congestion and reduced waste of commute time.
It's ridiculous for you to say Hybrids equals to Hummers. I am driving a Prius and gets 65 MPG in average. Unfortunately this can not be a solution for every one. As popular as Prius is, they are selling no more than 100,000 per year in North America. I do not see any good solution to the pending economy collapse due to oil shortage, much less so because it simply has not come to the agendas for the politicians to consider yet.
Anon said:
Or... according to Dr. Stanley Monteith, Peak Oil is a myth...
http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley.htm
JD, why are you debunking a myth and we're not talking about the doomer myth, but PO in the geological sense.
He, and the site that article on is conspiracy theorist heaven. I wouldn't take anything said on that site seriously.
Abiotic oil, abiotic oil!
LOL
chris: Even in an economy collapse (at least the early stages), having half the gas bill helps.
Chris:
Pricing people out of driving and force people to stay at home is not a solution. Don't ask me what's the solution. I don't see any. Economy collapse will occur and there will be massive die off. The reason I switch to a Prius and do other preparation things is that hopefully those driving Hummers will dies off first. When enough die off occured then the demand is destructed enough to allow me to continue to drive a Prius and continue to survive.
Industry civilization as we know it will end. But humanity itself may survive and learn to live in a sustainable way, after a massive die off to reduce population. So there will be survivors.
chris: He said "economy collapse", which made me think Great Depression, not dieoff. Now, clearly, he means something different...
And if you can't afford to drive, you're more likely to die.
Chris:
There is nothing funny and this is not a laughing matter. It's a matter of survival.
Individually, I believe that one who prepares himself for the coming crisis is highly likely to survive. Driving a prius is just one of the many small things, and just something transitional. Set up solar panels, plant your back yards, try to utilize biomass energy, etc. Hopefully one can convert into a lifestyle which is sustainable on itself. Robinson managed to survive 19 years on an island.
But globallly most people simply can NOT do the same and survive. Most people will not be able to acquire a Prius. There are not enough produced due to the resource restraint. If every one rush to buy one, it could end up being too expensive to have one and your money can best be spent on something else. Most people will NOT be able to cover their rooftops with solar panels, either. There can never be enough solar panels produced to cover even a small fraction of all the roofs of the world, again due to resource restraint. Once again if every one rush to buy solar panels, it will become so expensive that you might as well better spent your money on something else.
If one dig a hole a hundred feet deep, and circulate water between underground and your house, using electricity powered by solar panels. You have perfect air conditioning without consuming any electricity. However once again, this can not be done on a massive scale. Digging holes and setting up geothermal heat pumps takes equipments and consumes large amount of energy. When every one rush to do it the cost becomes too expensive and you might as well spend money on something else.
The point is each and every contengency approach all consumes large amount of energy and resource, and so they can all be good ideas for individuals but can not be carried out on a massive scale.
Now think about the Noah'a Ark story. Every one laughs at Noah but that's exactly the reason why he was able to collect his woods at cheap price and took his time to build his Ark before the flood came. Should every one realize it. Then every one would wanted to built his own Ark and there would not be enough wood for any one and Noah would not have survived.
Quantoken
Quantoken,
If you believe in a die-off, and you're driving a Prius, you are in deep denial
Why do doomers even care what we think?
We are all going to die anyway, so why should our ramblings on an internet blog even be of the concern of one of these mountain-men who shall carry on the human race after us "flat earthers" have long perished?
Post a Comment
<< Home