Many of us 40 or older know we have been down this road of higher CAFE, Energy Star appliances, better insulated homes, fluorescent bulbs,
I'm in that 40+ category. I think that CAFE doesn't belong in your list. It represented a government mandate, the rest of your examples represented efficiency standards. CAFE was a joke but as a consumer I don't mind being informed about the efficiency of the products that I am choosing amongst.
Thomas Edison and Nicolai Tesla believed that we were surrounded by free energy. Not to be offensive but I suspect these guys were smarter than most of the posters
I agree they are smarter than me and I believe they are correct.
Full time RV'rs spending up to 900k for a new 40' Country Coach is a growing segment in the USA. Formerly these folks spent a lot of $ being world travelers, but the international terrorist scene has them spooked. My retired sister in law & husband are one example of these people, but their coach only cost 155k used. They think nothing of spending $50 a night to park at a swank upscale M/H park like the one in Kerrville, TX. They have a retirement income that enables them to do this and are not concerned about the price of diesel. Rather than be part of a jet transporting them overseas frequently, they feel they are consuming less petrol by being RV'rs here in the states. Palm Springs in the Winter and B.C. in the Summer. How signficant is this growing trend and what % of the diesel sold are they imbibbing in?
Well Rocky, this is one area that we agree. Unfortunately it doesn't fit into a lot of business models. I tend to discount most conspiracy theories but there is one that I gave a little credibility to. Tesla believed that there was a free flowing energy in our environment that could be tapped into. There isn't any evidence to the validity of this belief but there is evidence that his efforts were stopped dead in their tracks. Anyway, its something to think about.
There is also something else we could use for a fuel source, it kept in these tubes where it floats in circles after it's created. Some darn little microscopic atom looking deal. It's the most powerful ball of energy we know of. Maybe you can help me out ? It was also mentioned on coast to coast a.m. and I believe Hoagland was talking about it. :confuse:
I'll admit it, I listen to Coast-to-Coast on occasion. It is purely for entertainment purposes. There was this one guy that was a regular on the show, I think his name was George. He was abducted by aliens on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes he was probed. Poor [non-permissible content removed].
If you've ever listened to this show it is definitely good fun, almost like reading the tabloids while you're waiting to check out at the supermarket. If this ever becomes your source of the truth that might be something to worry about.
I don't look at it as a source of info, but it is a very great show and George Noory and Art Bell do a great job. I have seen weird things in the sky before that I couldn't explain. :surprise: Some of the photo's people have sent in on the website does creep me out though.
Rocky
P.S. perhaps the Aliens will solve our dependency on foreign oil. Nancy Reagan used to talk to the stars you know.
Hi all- GREAT topic! -Kernick, et al- My bottom line (and hubby's quite fond of it, thank you) ~_^ is, if everyone only had only or two kids, period, nearly every one of the problems you mentioned in your post would ameliorate themselves. I'm not saying if it comes out a girl go suffocate it and try again. (who are all those millions of Chinese babies going to marry when they all become grown men, anyway?!) - I'm just saying we all need to pull our collective heads out and really preach LOWER growth rates for everyone on this ever-shrinking planet. This would help. I don't see the Pope* feeding millions upon millions of starving babies anywhere. (*Saying condom use is murder is ludicrous.) Hope I haven't offended too many readers, it was not my intention at all. Blessings, Nanette <><
NO NO NANETTE (that was a cute song a long time ago)
If Rowe vs Wade had gone the other way, this country would then have enough laborers legally here and we would not have the immigration problem we have today. Just think, 50 million automatic citizens employed and productive here rather than out sourcing jobs overseas. Sure, our collective standard of living would be just a little lower, but there wouldn't be 50 million women dealing with abortion remorse either.
I agree with you 110% . china has too many people, as do many other countries. All those people are making money and have been able to buy cars and gasoline.
Even here in the US...the number of people who have cars have increased...due to the group of kids of baby boomers coming of age and using gasoline. Add to that the apparent gain in wealth for most people, the number of people in the world who can afford to buy gas has increased tremendously.
there is a paradigm shift ...with more people all over the world , who can afford gasoline....and there is barely an increase in supply of it being pumped or processed .
US used to have 315 refineries 10 years ago...now it has only 144 !!
Blame the tree huggers / democrats , for making it hard to build a refinery.
Hope I have not offended anyone,...but nanette is right....
We have to decrease population growth....and decrease usage of resources....
Hi,i am from one country in Europe.Here ,price of petrol is higher then in US so 50% cars here run on euro-diesel and allmoust all non diesel cars run on LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) because it is 2.5 cheaper then petrol and it is significantly cleaner .Every car than run on petrol can be converted to use LPG and average gas powered engine will last longer than a petrol engine.
P.S. perhaps the Aliens will solve our dependency on foreign oil
I used to have discussions with friends about whether or not we thought that aliens existed. I tend to agree with Carl Sagan. It is highly unlikely that they don't exist. I just don't believe they are visiting us. But I would tell my friends that if I was ever abducted my position would be. "Hey guys, probe away but could I have a little information in return"? Alternative energy sources is one of the things I'd ask them about.
In theory I like the idea of expanding our rail system. Unfortunately we didn't develop our communities with that in mind so at the present time it wouldn't work as well as in other countries. The other drawback to trains is that they make good terrorist targets.
Propane (LPG) is a combination of by-products from natural gas and gasoline refining. Many parks, zoos, amusement parks, and almost all propane companies use it to fuel their vehicles. It is cleaner burning than gasoline. Conversion was easy on older carb engines. Conversion had a problem with fuel injection. However, Ford and GM seemed to have worked those problems out just before shelving these vehicles from sale to the general public. They didn't have any buyers. Timing is everything, so now may be the time to bring them back.
Sun and wind generators are expensive, but I personally believe we must invest more in them. Stop building more gas-powered electric plants and shift to more solar and wind farms.
Did you know that wind farms produce more power every 4th year? Politicians increase wind velocity.
China does have an incredible number of people but they realized the problem of explosive population growth a long time ago. They actually advocate only 1 child. I think their total population has remained pretty static over the last 20 years. On the other hand in our country we give you tax breaks for having kids. We also make it a requirement for receiving welfare in some cases. We seem to be the ones that don't get it. With that said it appears that the more educated in our society have gotten the message that they can improve their standard of living by limiting family size. The bulk of the US population growth is taking place in the poorest segment of our society and it is also due to immigration. I read that at the current pace there will be 400 million in this country by 2040 and the added numbers will be almost entirely a result of immigrants and their kids. I'm not immigrant bashing, that's just the way it is.
This may sound heartless but when I see stories of people starving in 3rd world countries I think to myself that starvation is the only thing limiting their population. We could potentially feed them but we'd have to feed more of them each successive year. I'm a firm believer in only helping those that are willing to make an effort to help themselves. Population control doesn't require wealth or a college degree. It is something that anyone is capable of doing and they should definitely do it. Were not a bunch of rabbits, are we?
there is a paradigm shift ...with more people all over the world , who can afford gasoline....and there is barely an increase in supply of it being pumped or processed
The increase in demand has outpaced new discoveries for quite some time now. Obviously an unsustainable trend.
At one time I thought it would be kinda cool to get an old motorhome (a few years back I almost bought a '74 Travco 220 for $2900, but backed out at the last minute) and travel the country. I thought that even with gasoline costs, it would be a pretty cheap way to go. But it seems like campgrounds are getting a lot more expensive than what I remember as a kid.
I wonder if it would almost be cheaper to just travel by car and stay in cheap motels?
It would help if Congress wasn't so beholding to the BIG oil companies. Big oil keeps pouring money into their campaign funds. This needs to stop..................
you: So cutting back isn't going to be the ultimate savior then is what your saying ?
me: The amount of oil in the world isn't growing is it? The rate at which we can pump it and refine isn't growing much is it? What's happening to the population of the U.S. and world? Is the world economy and the nnumber of factories using energy growing? The number of people who want a slice of the pie is growing. Those who can pay the most for the pie will get it at a higher price, and those who can't or don't want to pay the price for a slice, will be squeezed out (slowly squeezed out).
That scenario will occur unless we get fusion, or make massive concessions to put windmills and advanced solar collectors all over the U.S.
you: I think we have an abundance of energy. We just don't have an abundance of the stored energy that we are currently consuming.
me: I agree. We just don't have the technology to collect it efficiently. Probably enough solar energy hits the Earth to power our needs.
Oil, coal, and natural gas are all forms of stored solar energy. All energy sources on Earth derived and continue to derive from the Sun, if you believe the earth was formed from the same cosmic material. The sun creates air movement as different temperature air has different density, and the sun evaporates water to create rain to power hydroelectric plants, and it grows plants to create ethanol, or wood.
Just consider how far the sun is from Earth, and then in the summer stand in the sun at midday and feel the energy even through the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. The sun is doing this in all directions from its surface - for billions of years. That is why it so attractive to replicate the sun's process here through fusion reactors. Creating billions of windmills and billions of solar panels and placing them all over the earth is not practical. Solar and wind can help reduce our use of fossil fuels until fusion is ready. With fusion power you'll be able to make as much gasoline, ethanol or hydrogen as you want.
If you've never seen the movie Aliens, or have, there is a bit of technology envisioned in there, that you can do once you have the energy. On the planet was a colony with a large fusion reactor. The reactor wasn't just to supply the colony with power. The reactor and the colony were there to transform the atmosphere of the planet so that humans could live outside in 20 years. With energy you can break up molecules and recombine them to create different materials. As an example; with electrolysis you can change water into 2H2 and O2. Oil isn't much more than C, H, and O, all which are broke up in our auto engines combustion. Then could be recombined. Or if you don't like the high CO2 and other greenhouse gases, they could be scrubbbed.
The point is fossil fuels have a limit, renewable energy is hard to collect, would be unavailable in areas for times and require massive infrastructure. The best hope for the future centuries and an earth as we know it, is fusion (or some other advanced energy).
become U.S. citizens, and they have a set amount of time to stay here and earn money, then will our Federal taxes decrease because we have more U.S.citizens paying Federal taxes?
It's nice to dream, isn't it? We need more warlplanes and battleships to spend that cash on, huh? Yikes.
I agree, Coast to Coast AM can be a trip and pretty entertaining. The fact remains that there are weird sightings all the time by airline and other pilots, people all over on the ground, etc. The lights over Phoenix in, what was it, 1998, were reported to be weather balloons or part of a regular military exercise? That theory was de-bunked because they were not dropping down like they would be if they were flares or weather balloons or whatever the diversionary thought was from the local authorities. They were just sitting over the city for a long while.
There's all sorts of unexplained sky sightings. Art's show is great for keeping the questions going in our minds, mulling over what might or might not be going on behind the scenes.
That's what I paid per gallon (after converting liters to gallons and Francs to $) back in 1985/86 while driving through rural France. Much of the European cost per gallon/liter is due to taxes. Our US and State taxes are a much smaller portion of the total.
I understand and accept that I may one day pay $4.50/gallon in the US. However, there's no way we should be paying near $3.00/gallon while the oil companies are raking in billions of $$$ in profits. Our government must get involved and increase the gasoline tax (although extremely unpopular). Right now, they're talking about taking the gas tax out altogther for 2 or 3 months. They should hold their ground and increase the big oil company taxes by reducing their tax deductions/write-offs/credits.
I do agree with the previous post that we will run out of fossil fuels and that solar/wind power is not the solution. However, higher priced fuel (where the extra money is used for research not oil company profits) combined with energy saving solar/wind power can extend the period before fossil fuel is depleted.
People are not going to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. People are not going to pay 3.50 for biodiesel unless No.2 is 3.51. people are not goign to buy a flux fuel car unless 85 is cheaper than gas and not just cheaper but it has to be much cheaper and stay that way for a long time. I would not mind paying $3 gas if the tax money collected from it was being used to promote and develop alternative fuel and developing the for new infastructure for it. Ethonal cannot be piped though the current piplines it has to be shipped because unlike gas it is water soluable.
Unfortuantly, the govenrment will have to force the change in people. One way to do it is every time a fueling station changes out its tanks, there should be a law requiring them to add a tank with alternative fuel choices. Ethonal, Bio, methane(made from waste), I don't care. Force government fleets (fire, police, post, schools) in that area to use that fuel so that there is not just a tank sitting there full of fuel that noone uses. Then allow the fueling station to sell the alternative for little or not road tax to make it competitive with gas. We should also be helping china, india and other developing contries to start using alternatives instead of oil so that they don't wind up in the same place that we are in. Most developing contries have really cheap agricutlural products, they should be taking advantage of Biomass not looking for spare oil. but we can't do that, How hypocritical would it be for the US to go to south africa and tell them how bad oil is. This country is built on oil.
More immigrants mean a larger population of drivers. Do you agree this raises gasoline demand? And higher demand is more likely to raise prices?
Also we muct differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants when we discuss revenues and costs. Legal immigrants are much more likely to be part of the system, paying SS and having taxes withheld, and more likely to have health insurance. Illegal immigrants are more likely to be paid cash, and to be working in agriculture and construction crews which have no insurance. They would get free healthcare as hospitals are not allowed to run citizenship checks to deny them service. we should welcome legal immigrants that are here, but not illegal immigrants.
Population increase of any sort makes the energy-usage situation worse.
Increasing peoples' standard of living while well-meaning also makes the energy situation worse.
You get it. Or hopefully we're not bacteria in a petri dish.
If the table is set for dinner for 6, and more and more people show up, there's going to be some unhappy people no matter how you split it. Since we "divvy up dinner" (as well as everything else) by who has the most money, I suggest you either plan to reduce your energy consumption, or figure out how to make yourself more valuable (or wealthier).
For what it's worth, gasoline in the UK is now about L1.00 per liter. At L1.00 equal to about $1.82 and a gallon being equal to about 3.8 liters, that works out to be about $6.90 per US gallon. At those prices, my typical fill-up here would cost about $100...
I went to the DOE website a while back, and using there data on how much oil is pumped annually and the world population, calculated that each person's equal share of oil a week would be about 5 gallons. That 5 gallons of oil would be for heat (northeasterners), for tractors to grow/harvest/ship your food, for trucks to fill the Walmarts for you, any jet travel you do, and of course to make gasoline for your auto needs.
Probably enough solar energy hits the Earth to power our needs.
The amount of solar energy that hits the earth in 30 minutes excedes all the energy consumed by the world in a year.
A quote from Nikola Tesla.
We are whirling through endless space with an inconceivable speed, all around us everything is spinning, everything is moving, everywhere is energy. There must be some way of availing ourselves of this energy more directly.
We should also be helping china, india and other developing contries to start using alternatives instead of oil so that they don't wind up in the same place that we are in
I don't know about India but China is very serious about alternative energy. Unlike our country they don't have oil industry lobbyists influencing their energy policy. They are well aware that importing massive amounts of oil is not in their economic best interest. I wouldn't be at all surprised if China is the first country to have electric vehicles on a large scale and we end up following their lead.
I agree with your statement. I advocate 10$/gallon gas and diesel.
At the same time we should increase energy efficiency and build lightweight safe cars by making innovative use of materials and safety technology.
People are not going to migrate to energy efficiency unless they are made to do it. It is only adversity that makes humans tick. No one wants to come out of their comfort zone and make changes.
The rapid melting of ice in arctic and antarctic, the growing number of hurricanes (destructive hurricanes have doubled in last 35 years) and the rapid and permanent disappearance of ice capped mountains have not done anything to move the people.
The bottom line is wallet. Thats the only language people, including you and I understand in very clear terms. President Bush should impress upon American people that they must start paying the same price as europeans do. 7-8 dollars a gallon.
In fact we should lead the world in making it 10$/gallon. This would also help oil companies make more profits and so they will pay more corporate taxes and those taxes should go towards education and healthcare.
I advocate rising oil prices. Let the oil go 200$/barrell. I am all for it.
I think we should generate most of our electricity with nuclear power like the french do. That will bring a lot of energy security,.
Thing long term guys. What do you think is going to happen in a few decades. Ethanol is not the solution. Growing crops for ethanol on such large scale will also harm the environment, soil erosion, ecological diversity will be ruined.
We should also focus on wind and solar power.
Solar power should be used for cars and the rest should come from 200 mpg diesel-electric.
However, there's no way we should be paying near $3.00/gallon while the oil companies are raking in billions of $$$ in profits
I'm amazed and quite a bit frustrated by how many people don't understand the basics of how the oil market works. I don't claim to be an expert but I think that I grasp the basics. Exxon/Mobil and other oil companies have oil fields all over the world that they pump oil out of. These fields are all different in terms of how much it costs to extract the oil but the cost is basically fixed. If the market drives up the price of oil the profit margin has to increase. The oil companies are not driving up the price of oil. As far as I can tell they are pumping oil as fast as they can. These prices are set on the commodity market, NYMEX. If you are a homeowner you've probably seen your property appreciate at over 10% for the last 5 years. If you chose to sell your property at the market value a first time homebuyer might think that you were gouging him. You're not because you didn't set the market price.
If China were serious about avoiding imports, shouldn't they be concentrating on mass transit.
China wisely used the bicycle as a primary mode of personal transit up to the early 1990s. There seems to be an aspect of nationalim driving the move toward the auto: 'If the US can do it, we can too.'
As for electric cars, China already has rolling brownouts in major Cities and even more severe shortages in rural areas. While damming every river and building nuclear power plants wherever the government pleases has been a hallmark of the Communist Party, there is reason to believe Chinese peasants are less likely to accept having these facilities crammed down their throats.
I would not be so sanguine about China's planning and foresight.
I don't claim to be an expert but I think that I grasp the basics. Exxon/Mobil and other oil companies have oil fields all over the world that they pump oil out of. These fields are all different in terms of how much it costs to extract the oil but the cost is basically fixed. If the market drives up the price of oil the profit margin has to increase. The oil companies are not driving up the price of oil. As far as I can tell they are pumping oil as fast as they can. These prices are set on the commodity market, NYMEX.
Yeah, but:
Exxon/Mobil and the others are pumping oil in some pretty dicey areas. They are able to drill in these dicey areas in large part because the US military is so much more effective than any other. The US military happens to be more effective because there is a lot more money spent on it.
At the same time the oil companies are making these profits, their overall tax burden goes down.
Meaning, on the one hand, the average consumer is paying more for gas owing to market prices, while on the other, the oil companies are able to exploit the market prices owing to government intervention mostly paid for by the people paying the higher gas prices.
Sounds like welfare to me. And as we all know, people who benefit from government handouts have no business crying about government intervention in their affairs. At least that is how it works for the high school drop out single mom.
I agree that if the price of oil went to $200/barrel some good things would happen in terms of forcing a transition to alternatives. Unfortunately a lot of bad things would happen when it comes to our economy. That's why I don't think we should wait for the market to create $200 oil. We should artificially create this level through taxes. That way we'd have the positive consequences of high priced oil and money to mitigate the negative consequences. A managed transition has got to be less painful then one that is forced upon us.
Another point. A $2 tax on a gallon of gas would, in all likelihood, drive down the price of oil significantly. Resulting in less than a $2 increase at the pump. For instance, this $2 tax raises the price of gas to $5/gallon. We immediately reduce consumption, which reduces demand, which reduces the price for a barrel of oil. Let's say this reduced demand drives down the price of a barrel from $70 to $50. This should drop the price at the pump to $4.50. So we've collected $2 in taxes and it only cost us $1.50. Where did this money come from? The oil producers. Hey, they're the bad guys, right? An added bonus, the other oil importing countries of the world would appreciate this.
I also agree that this ethanol approach is a non-starter.
I agree with everything you've said. But it seems to me that we shouldn't be blaming the oil companies we should be blaming the people that give them this preferential treatment. Who's more corrupt, the industry that pays for preferential treatment or the legislator that takes the money? The fact is our government has made it pretty clear that they are for sale and an industry would be crazy not to take advantage of this.
In my opinion, however, the corollary would be the oil companies have to play with the rules of the game. And the rules of the game are that the government is the people, not the legislators.
When gas prices were low, the people did not pay attention to the lobbying. Now that gas prices are high, the government is finally hearing it from the voters.
Unless MobilExxon wants to argue that the people have legally acquiesced to our taxes covering their risk with us gaining no right to regulate, they have to expect the market can change for them when we decide to pay attention.
You've got to keep in mind that oil companies like Exxon/Mobil pay a huge amount in taxes. With that said I do believe that they enjoy an incestuous relationship with our government that serves to increase their profitability. If anything this would result in gas prices being artificially low. I'm all for eliminating any sweetheart deals but I suspect that it won't do anything to reduce the price at the pump.
You've got to keep in mind that oil companies like Exxon/Mobil pay a huge amount in taxes.
Yes, but that only because their income is so high. If Mobile paid income tax at the rate the middle class wage earner paid income tax, it would pay a heck of lot more than it does now.
The bulk of the federal tax receipts come from the middle income wage earner. The feds could not do what they do without us.
My feeling is that had the US reverted back to its pre-WWII avoidance of getting involved abroad (and keeping federal taxes low), the resulting chaos in the MidEast would never have allowed oil prices to get artificially low. Instead of paying billions for super highways, airports, and housing models that encourage wasteful commutes, the US would have upgraded what was then excellent rail infrastructure, making denser housing models as acceptably pleasant as it is in, say, the Netherlands, and perhaps place more emphasis on making alternative energy work.
As it is, we are now going to have to figure out how to do all this with the millstone of expensive fossil fuel. Doable. I like to think anyway. All the more so if those who profited the most from the folly bear a proportionate burden of setting it right.
China has an increased demand as they develop. Worldwide production,exploration and refinement of petroleum needs to increase. OPEC needs to be brought under some measure of control to increase output. Refineries need to be built. We are not "runnng out of oil" now or anytime in the next 1,000 years. We are running out of capacity to refine it becuase we haven't built a refinery in 15 years. There are huge untapped oil reserves undet the gulf of Mexico and off CA. This isn't 1895...we don't just randomly drill holes and then yell "there she blows" when we strike oil. Oil excavation is light years more advanced.
$200 dollar a barrel oil would destroy this country. The price of everything would go through the roof due to insane transportation costs. Business would go bankrupt and the economy would be in serious trouble. The answer is to get serious about production of a resource we have plenty of.
This isn't a closley packed in country like Europe is. We are an open country where transporatation via car or train or Airplane can often be long distances, using fuel.
you: As for electric cars, China already has rolling brownouts in major Cities and even more severe shortages in rural areas.
me: and their electrical power plants are mostly powered by coal which they have a lot of. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html But that will mainly be used for supplying power for new factories and lights, appliances and TV's to the billion people who don't have it. With the low wages, the Chinese people will not be driving electric cars if they are more expensive to make than a gas or diesel vehicle.
In the U.S. electricity usage is about equal to generating capacity. I know here in New England it is forecast that in the next few years there will also be rolling brown-outs. There is no excess capacity to charge electric cars. That would be a large number of electrical powerplants, and I don't know what fuel you'd plan on using to power them. Natural gas supplies have sometimes been in doubt of being adequate if the weather is cold. Plus if oil is in short supply, the millions who heat with oil would also need to shift ot some other fuel.
And all the wealthy people who live along the coast where there is a lot of wind daily do not want to look at windmills - Nantucket Sound for example. They use environmental/historical issues and groups as allies to nix these good proposals.
Someone commented on the news that we need to let them make high profits so they can have the money to build refineries and search for oil.
Isn't high profits what they've been making for the last several years? Where are the new oil finds, the better recovery, the refineries newly built???
you: At the same time the oil companies are making these profits, their overall tax burden goes down.
me: please show us your data. Exxon Mobil made $21.5B profit and paid $72.5B in taxes in 2003. In 2004 they had $25.3B profit and paid $84B tax. And last year their record profit year of $36.1B, they paid $95.5B tax. See P. 38 http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf
This of course does not count the taxes shareholders paid when they received dividends, or any of the taxes that Exxon employees paid in federal, state, and property taxes, plus all the social security taxes. It sounds like a lot of tax to me. And there are other major oil companies paying proportionally large taxes.
Basically the government takes most of the profit now (70-75%), so it seems rather silly to advocate taking the last 25-30% of the profit. Then all the stockholders can sell out, and stop paying taxes on the dividends, and let the government run it, which should be a fiasco. Maybe FEMA could run it?
The bulk of the federal tax receipts come from the middle income wage earner. The feds could not do what they do without us.
I think that its time for a big reality check. The top 5% of wage earners pay 54% of income taxes. If you were to take the federal budget and divide it by the number of wage earners you would come up with an average tax burden per wage earner. Anyone earning less than $80k isn't paying their share. As much as we like to bash the rich, make no mistake, they are paying the bills. And as much as people like to accuse Bush as being a President for the rich the data doesn't support this. The overall tax burden on the rich has increased during the Bush administration. I'm not a Bush supporter, I just prefer to base my opinions on factual data.
You'll read my previous post and see where a lot of the profits went. Also do you realize that people would not invest in a company if they don't get some profit? If there are no investors there is no money to start or keep the drilling going! If a person can buy Treasury Bills and earn 5-6% guaranteed, they expect to make more of a return on a risky venture - like a corporate bond or stock. People expect the company to make profit to increase the value of their stock (probably 10% per year counting dividends of 1%).
Check and see how much money the stockholders have tied up in Exxon. Would you invest $1M in Exxon if you didn't expect to make 10% a year? You certainly don't want to make nothing. The Market Cap. of Exxon - meaning the price of the stock x the number of shares is $384B today. That is how much money people have invested in Exxon. So it looks like people are earning about 10% on the money they have invested.
The middle class pays nothing in Federal income tax. Five years ago I was single amd making between 35-40k a year. My Fed income tax bill was a joke. Got a refund for just about what little I paid. A friend of mine at the same time was single and making 85-90 k a year..he got creamed.
you: We should artificially create this level through taxes. That way we'd have the positive consequences of high priced oil and money to mitigate the negative consequences.
me: Such as a major recession? That would reduce taxes overall as millions lost their jobs, income and sales tax drop, and payments of unemployment, welfare, and uninsured going to hospitals overwhelmed your tax increase. Plus you'd knock a lot of value out of the stock-market and many billions of taxes paid on stock market gains would be lost.
you: A $2 tax on a gallon of gas would, in all likelihood, drive down the price of oil significantly.
me: Would significant be 20%? If so and we use 25% of the world's oil, we have dropped global demand 5%. The price would drop. This makes oil more attractive and other countries would buy more (this assumes of course we haven't pulled the whole world economy down with us into recession). Within 1-2 years because of population and economic growth around the world, global consumption would be right back where it was before we increased the tax $2. And then energy usage simply increases again. What does that solve?
I have worked in the oil industry for 30 years and have a Petroleum Engineering degree. A few fun facts. Oil is still the cheapest motor fuel. Economical Hydrogen, Ethanol, etc are years off. Government subsidy is all that will support these. Oil is boom and bust 75$ oil will be 25$ next year and so on, always has always will. Cheap oil is what most people are worried about. Shale oil, tar sands, etc will be cheaper than any alternative for at least the next 50 years after oil from standard production slows. "experts" have predicted the end of the oil era since 1859 shortly after Drake drilled the first US oil well in Pennsylvania. Future scenario, no matter who you listen to and follow their logic to completion, you end up with some sort of nuclear energy. Argue what you will but oil companies have no stake in MPG as people drive to their budget not a fixed mileage. Just my pinion but the average Joe has very little idea of what forces drive the energy industry if they think anything but raw economics will determine which energy source is available. In other words, no one will give much more than lip service to energy projects that are not profitable.
The sad thing is that you are representative of the average American voter.
OPEC is pumping oil at 100%, maybe we should give them some kind of Knute Rockne speech and tell them that we need 110%. Refining capacity may need to be increased but if that was really the problem we would have a big disparity between crude oil inventory and unleaded gas inventory. Without a supply limit the world demand for oil would increase by close to 3% a year. That clearly can't be satisfied so anyone that cites increased production as an answer isn't dealing with reality.
you: If Mobile paid income tax at the rate the middle class wage earner paid income tax, it would pay a heck of lot more than it does now.
me: again, where's any semblance of data on this?! Go to the Exxon Mobil annual report that was filed with the SEC. I come up with an income tax rate in 2005 of 39.2%. Who in the middle class pays that rate? That is after paying $70B-$80B of other taxes.
Comments
I'm in that 40+ category. I think that CAFE doesn't belong in your list. It represented a government mandate, the rest of your examples represented efficiency standards. CAFE was a joke but as a consumer I don't mind being informed about the efficiency of the products that I am choosing amongst.
I agree they are smarter than me and I believe they are correct.
Rocky
Rocky
If you've ever listened to this show it is definitely good fun, almost like reading the tabloids while you're waiting to check out at the supermarket. If this ever becomes your source of the truth that might be something to worry about.
Rocky
P.S. perhaps the Aliens will solve our dependency on foreign oil.
GREAT topic!
-Kernick, et al-
My bottom line (and hubby's quite fond of it, thank you) ~_^ is, if everyone only had only or two kids, period, nearly every one of the problems you mentioned in your post would ameliorate themselves.
I'm not saying if it comes out a girl go suffocate it and try again. (who are all those millions of Chinese babies going to marry when they all become grown men, anyway?!) - I'm just saying we all need to pull our collective heads out and really preach LOWER growth rates for everyone on this ever-shrinking planet. This would help.
I don't see the Pope* feeding millions upon millions of starving babies anywhere.
(*Saying condom use is murder is ludicrous.)
Hope I haven't offended too many readers, it was not my intention at all.
Blessings,
Nanette
<><
If Rowe vs Wade had gone the other way, this country would then have enough laborers legally here and we would not have the immigration problem we have today. Just think, 50 million automatic citizens employed and productive here rather than out sourcing jobs overseas. Sure, our collective standard of living would be just a little lower, but there wouldn't be 50 million women dealing with abortion remorse either.
I agree with you 110% . china has too many people, as do many other countries. All those people are making money and have been able to buy cars and gasoline.
Even here in the US...the number of people who have cars have increased...due to the group of kids of baby boomers coming of age and using gasoline. Add to that the apparent gain in wealth for most people, the number of people in the world who can afford to buy gas has increased tremendously.
there is a paradigm shift ...with more people all over the world , who can afford gasoline....and there is barely an increase in supply of it being pumped or processed .
US used to have 315 refineries 10 years ago...now it has only 144 !!
Blame the tree huggers / democrats , for making it hard to build a refinery.
Hope I have not offended anyone,...but nanette is right....
We have to decrease population growth....and decrease usage of resources....
I used to have discussions with friends about whether or not we thought that aliens existed. I tend to agree with Carl Sagan. It is highly unlikely that they don't exist. I just don't believe they are visiting us. But I would tell my friends that if I was ever abducted my position would be. "Hey guys, probe away but could I have a little information in return"? Alternative energy sources is one of the things I'd ask them about.
Sun and wind generators are expensive, but I personally believe we must invest more in them. Stop building more gas-powered electric plants and shift to more solar and wind farms.
Did you know that wind farms produce more power every 4th year? Politicians increase wind velocity.
This may sound heartless but when I see stories of people starving in 3rd world countries I think to myself that starvation is the only thing limiting their population. We could potentially feed them but we'd have to feed more of them each successive year. I'm a firm believer in only helping those that are willing to make an effort to help themselves. Population control doesn't require wealth or a college degree. It is something that anyone is capable of doing and they should definitely do it. Were not a bunch of rabbits, are we?
there is a paradigm shift ...with more people all over the world , who can afford gasoline....and there is barely an increase in supply of it being pumped or processed
The increase in demand has outpaced new discoveries for quite some time now. Obviously an unsustainable trend.
I wonder if it would almost be cheaper to just travel by car and stay in cheap motels?
me: The amount of oil in the world isn't growing is it? The rate at which we can pump it and refine isn't growing much is it? What's happening to the population of the U.S. and world? Is the world economy and the nnumber of factories using energy growing? The number of people who want a slice of the pie is growing. Those who can pay the most for the pie will get it at a higher price, and those who can't or don't want to pay the price for a slice, will be squeezed out (slowly squeezed out).
That scenario will occur unless we get fusion, or make massive concessions to put windmills and advanced solar collectors all over the U.S.
me: I agree. We just don't have the technology to collect it efficiently. Probably enough solar energy hits the Earth to power our needs.
Oil, coal, and natural gas are all forms of stored solar energy. All energy sources on Earth derived and continue to derive from the Sun, if you believe the earth was formed from the same cosmic material. The sun creates air movement as different temperature air has different density, and the sun evaporates water to create rain to power hydroelectric plants, and it grows plants to create ethanol, or wood.
Just consider how far the sun is from Earth, and then in the summer stand in the sun at midday and feel the energy even through the Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere. The sun is doing this in all directions from its surface - for billions of years. That is why it so attractive to replicate the sun's process here through fusion reactors. Creating billions of windmills and billions of solar panels and placing them all over the earth is not practical. Solar and wind can help reduce our use of fossil fuels until fusion is ready. With fusion power you'll be able to make as much gasoline, ethanol or hydrogen as you want.
If you've never seen the movie Aliens, or have, there is a bit of technology envisioned in there, that you can do once you have the energy. On the planet was a colony with a large fusion reactor. The reactor wasn't just to supply the colony with power. The reactor and the colony were there to transform the atmosphere of the planet so that humans could live outside in 20 years. With energy you can break up molecules and recombine them to create different materials. As an example; with electrolysis you can change water into 2H2 and O2. Oil isn't much more than C, H, and O, all which are broke up in our auto engines combustion. Then could be recombined. Or if you don't like the high CO2 and other greenhouse gases, they could be scrubbbed.
The point is fossil fuels have a limit, renewable energy is hard to collect, would be unavailable in areas for times and require massive infrastructure. The best hope for the future centuries and an earth as we know it, is fusion (or some other advanced energy).
It's nice to dream, isn't it? We need more warlplanes and battleships to spend that cash on, huh? Yikes.
I agree, Coast to Coast AM can be a trip and pretty entertaining. The fact remains that there are weird sightings all the time by airline and other pilots, people all over on the ground, etc. The lights over Phoenix in, what was it, 1998, were reported to be weather balloons or part of a regular military exercise? That theory was de-bunked because they were not dropping down like they would be if they were flares or weather balloons or whatever the diversionary thought was from the local authorities. They were just sitting over the city for a long while.
There's all sorts of unexplained sky sightings. Art's show is great for keeping the questions going in our minds, mulling over what might or might not be going on behind the scenes.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I understand and accept that I may one day pay $4.50/gallon in the US. However, there's no way we should be paying near $3.00/gallon while the oil companies are raking in billions of $$$ in profits. Our government must get involved and increase the gasoline tax (although extremely unpopular). Right now, they're talking about taking the gas tax out altogther for 2 or 3 months. They should hold their ground and increase the big oil company taxes by reducing their tax deductions/write-offs/credits.
I do agree with the previous post that we will run out of fossil fuels and that solar/wind power is not the solution. However, higher priced fuel (where the extra money is used for research not oil company profits) combined with energy saving solar/wind power can extend the period before fossil fuel is depleted.
People are not going to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. People are not going to pay 3.50 for biodiesel unless No.2 is 3.51. people are not goign to buy a flux fuel car unless 85 is cheaper than gas and not just cheaper but it has to be much cheaper and stay that way for a long time. I would not mind paying $3 gas if the tax money collected from it was being used to promote and develop alternative fuel and developing the for new infastructure for it. Ethonal cannot be piped though the current piplines it has to be shipped because unlike gas it is water soluable.
Unfortuantly, the govenrment will have to force the change in people. One way to do it is every time a fueling station changes out its tanks, there should be a law requiring them to add a tank with alternative fuel choices. Ethonal, Bio, methane(made from waste), I don't care. Force government fleets (fire, police, post, schools) in that area to use that fuel so that there is not just a tank sitting there full of fuel that noone uses. Then allow the fueling station to sell the alternative for little or not road tax to make it competitive with gas. We should also be helping china, india and other developing contries to start using alternatives instead of oil so that they don't wind up in the same place that we are in. Most developing contries have really cheap agricutlural products, they should be taking advantage of Biomass not looking for spare oil. but we can't do that, How hypocritical would it be for the US to go to south africa and tell them how bad oil is. This country is built on oil.
Also we muct differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants when we discuss revenues and costs. Legal immigrants are much more likely to be part of the system, paying SS and having taxes withheld, and more likely to have health insurance. Illegal immigrants are more likely to be paid cash, and to be working in agriculture and construction crews which have no insurance. They would get free healthcare as hospitals are not allowed to run citizenship checks to deny them service. we should welcome legal immigrants that are here, but not illegal immigrants.
Population increase of any sort makes the energy-usage situation worse.
Increasing peoples' standard of living while well-meaning also makes the energy situation worse.
The more we party, the worse we'll feel.
If the table is set for dinner for 6, and more and more people show up, there's going to be some unhappy people no matter how you split it. Since we "divvy up dinner" (as well as everything else) by who has the most money, I suggest you either plan to reduce your energy consumption, or figure out how to make yourself more valuable (or wealthier).
me: or stay at most Walmarts' lots; or do some research on how people are "boondocking".
That 5 gallons of oil would be for heat (northeasterners), for tractors to grow/harvest/ship your food, for trucks to fill the Walmarts for you, any jet travel you do, and of course to make gasoline for your auto needs.
The amount of solar energy that hits the earth in 30 minutes excedes all the energy consumed by the world in a year.
A quote from Nikola Tesla.
We are whirling through endless space with an inconceivable speed, all around us everything is spinning, everything is moving, everywhere is energy. There must be some way of availing ourselves of this energy more directly.
I don't know about India but China is very serious about alternative energy. Unlike our country they don't have oil industry lobbyists influencing their energy policy. They are well aware that importing massive amounts of oil is not in their economic best interest. I wouldn't be at all surprised if China is the first country to have electric vehicles on a large scale and we end up following their lead.
At the same time we should increase energy efficiency and build lightweight safe cars by making innovative use of materials and safety technology.
People are not going to migrate to energy efficiency unless they are made to do it. It is only adversity that makes humans tick. No one wants to come out of their comfort zone and make changes.
The rapid melting of ice in arctic and antarctic, the growing number of hurricanes (destructive hurricanes have doubled in last 35 years) and the rapid and permanent disappearance of ice capped mountains have not done anything to move the people.
The bottom line is wallet. Thats the only language people, including you and I understand in very clear terms. President Bush should impress upon American people that they must start paying the same price as europeans do. 7-8 dollars a gallon.
In fact we should lead the world in making it 10$/gallon. This would also help oil companies make more profits and so they will pay more corporate taxes and those taxes should go towards education and healthcare.
I think we should generate most of our electricity with nuclear power like the french do. That will bring a lot of energy security,.
Thing long term guys. What do you think is going to happen in a few decades. Ethanol is not the solution. Growing crops for ethanol on such large scale will also harm the environment, soil erosion, ecological diversity will be ruined.
We should also focus on wind and solar power.
Solar power should be used for cars and the rest should come from 200 mpg diesel-electric.
I'm amazed and quite a bit frustrated by how many people don't understand the basics of how the oil market works. I don't claim to be an expert but I think that I grasp the basics. Exxon/Mobil and other oil companies have oil fields all over the world that they pump oil out of. These fields are all different in terms of how much it costs to extract the oil but the cost is basically fixed. If the market drives up the price of oil the profit margin has to increase. The oil companies are not driving up the price of oil. As far as I can tell they are pumping oil as fast as they can. These prices are set on the commodity market, NYMEX. If you are a homeowner you've probably seen your property appreciate at over 10% for the last 5 years. If you chose to sell your property at the market value a first time homebuyer might think that you were gouging him. You're not because you didn't set the market price.
China wisely used the bicycle as a primary mode of personal transit up to the early 1990s. There seems to be an aspect of nationalim driving the move toward the auto: 'If the US can do it, we can too.'
As for electric cars, China already has rolling brownouts in major Cities and even more severe shortages in rural areas. While damming every river and building nuclear power plants wherever the government pleases has been a hallmark of the Communist Party, there is reason to believe Chinese peasants are less likely to accept having these facilities crammed down their throats.
I would not be so sanguine about China's planning and foresight.
Yeah, but:
Exxon/Mobil and the others are pumping oil in some pretty dicey areas. They are able to drill in these dicey areas in large part because the US military is so much more effective than any other. The US military happens to be more effective because there is a lot more money spent on it.
At the same time the oil companies are making these profits, their overall tax burden goes down.
Meaning, on the one hand, the average consumer is paying more for gas owing to market prices, while on the other, the oil companies are able to exploit the market prices owing to government intervention mostly paid for by the people paying the higher gas prices.
Sounds like welfare to me. And as we all know, people who benefit from government handouts have no business crying about government intervention in their affairs. At least that is how it works for the high school drop out single mom.
Another point. A $2 tax on a gallon of gas would, in all likelihood, drive down the price of oil significantly. Resulting in less than a $2 increase at the pump. For instance, this $2 tax raises the price of gas to $5/gallon. We immediately reduce consumption, which reduces demand, which reduces the price for a barrel of oil. Let's say this reduced demand drives down the price of a barrel from $70 to $50. This should drop the price at the pump to $4.50. So we've collected $2 in taxes and it only cost us $1.50. Where did this money come from? The oil producers. Hey, they're the bad guys, right? An added bonus, the other oil importing countries of the world would appreciate this.
I also agree that this ethanol approach is a non-starter.
In my opinion, however, the corollary would be the oil companies have to play with the rules of the game. And the rules of the game are that the government is the people, not the legislators.
When gas prices were low, the people did not pay attention to the lobbying. Now that gas prices are high, the government is finally hearing it from the voters.
Unless MobilExxon wants to argue that the people have legally acquiesced to our taxes covering their risk with us gaining no right to regulate, they have to expect the market can change for them when we decide to pay attention.
Yes, but that only because their income is so high. If Mobile paid income tax at the rate the middle class wage earner paid income tax, it would pay a heck of lot more than it does now.
The bulk of the federal tax receipts come from the middle income wage earner. The feds could not do what they do without us.
My feeling is that had the US reverted back to its pre-WWII avoidance of getting involved abroad (and keeping federal taxes low), the resulting chaos in the MidEast would never have allowed oil prices to get artificially low. Instead of paying billions for super highways, airports, and housing models that encourage wasteful commutes, the US would have upgraded what was then excellent rail infrastructure, making denser housing models as acceptably pleasant as it is in, say, the Netherlands, and perhaps place more emphasis on making alternative energy work.
As it is, we are now going to have to figure out how to do all this with the millstone of expensive fossil fuel. Doable. I like to think anyway. All the more so if those who profited the most from the folly bear a proportionate burden of setting it right.
$200 dollar a barrel oil would destroy this country. The price of everything would go through the roof due to insane transportation costs. Business would go bankrupt and the economy would be in serious trouble. The answer is to get serious about production of a resource we have plenty of.
This isn't a closley packed in country like Europe is. We are an open country where transporatation via car or train or Airplane can often be long distances, using fuel.
me: and their electrical power plants are mostly powered by coal which they have a lot of. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html
But that will mainly be used for supplying power for new factories and lights, appliances and TV's to the billion people who don't have it.
With the low wages, the Chinese people will not be driving electric cars if they are more expensive to make than a gas or diesel vehicle.
In the U.S. electricity usage is about equal to generating capacity. I know here in New England it is forecast that in the next few years there will also be rolling brown-outs. There is no excess capacity to charge electric cars. That would be a large number of electrical powerplants, and I don't know what fuel you'd plan on using to power them. Natural gas supplies have sometimes been in doubt of being adequate if the weather is cold. Plus if oil is in short supply, the millions who heat with oil would also need to shift ot some other fuel.
And all the wealthy people who live along the coast where there is a lot of wind daily do not want to look at windmills - Nantucket Sound for example. They use environmental/historical issues and groups as allies to nix these good proposals.
Isn't high profits what they've been making for the last several years? Where are the new oil finds, the better recovery, the refineries newly built???
Ain't happened.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
me: please show us your data. Exxon Mobil made $21.5B profit and paid $72.5B in taxes in 2003. In 2004 they had $25.3B profit and paid $84B tax. And last year their record profit year of $36.1B, they paid $95.5B tax. See P. 38 http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf
This of course does not count the taxes shareholders paid when they received dividends, or any of the taxes that Exxon employees paid in federal, state, and property taxes, plus all the social security taxes. It sounds like a lot of tax to me. And there are other major oil companies paying proportionally large taxes.
Basically the government takes most of the profit now (70-75%), so it seems rather silly to advocate taking the last 25-30% of the profit. Then all the stockholders can sell out, and stop paying taxes on the dividends, and let the government run it, which should be a fiasco. Maybe FEMA could run it?
The bulk of the federal tax receipts come from the middle income wage earner. The feds could not do what they do without us.
I think that its time for a big reality check. The top 5% of wage earners pay 54% of income taxes. If you were to take the federal budget and divide it by the number of wage earners you would come up with an average tax burden per wage earner. Anyone earning less than $80k isn't paying their share. As much as we like to bash the rich, make no mistake, they are paying the bills. And as much as people like to accuse Bush as being a President for the rich the data doesn't support this. The overall tax burden on the rich has increased during the Bush administration. I'm not a Bush supporter, I just prefer to base my opinions on factual data.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/250.html
Check and see how much money the stockholders have tied up in Exxon. Would you invest $1M in Exxon if you didn't expect to make 10% a year? You certainly don't want to make nothing. The Market Cap. of Exxon - meaning the price of the stock x the number of shares is $384B today. That is how much money people have invested in Exxon. So it looks like people are earning about 10% on the money they have invested.
me: Such as a major recession? That would reduce taxes overall as millions lost their jobs, income and sales tax drop, and payments of unemployment, welfare, and uninsured going to hospitals overwhelmed your tax increase. Plus you'd knock a lot of value out of the stock-market and many billions of taxes paid on stock market gains would be lost.
you: A $2 tax on a gallon of gas would, in all likelihood, drive down the price of oil significantly.
me: Would significant be 20%? If so and we use 25% of the world's oil, we have dropped global demand 5%. The price would drop. This makes oil more attractive and other countries would buy more (this assumes of course we haven't pulled the whole world economy down with us into recession). Within 1-2 years because of population and economic growth around the world, global consumption would be right back where it was before we increased the tax $2. And then energy usage simply increases again. What does that solve?
OPEC is pumping oil at 100%, maybe we should give them some kind of Knute Rockne speech and tell them that we need 110%. Refining capacity may need to be increased but if that was really the problem we would have a big disparity between crude oil inventory and unleaded gas inventory. Without a supply limit the world demand for oil would increase by close to 3% a year. That clearly can't be satisfied so anyone that cites increased production as an answer isn't dealing with reality.
me: again, where's any semblance of data on this?! Go to the Exxon Mobil annual report that was filed with the SEC. I come up with an income tax rate in 2005 of 39.2%. Who in the middle class pays that rate? That is after paying $70B-$80B of other taxes.