Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

And is it possible that a major economic and security crisis of $4/gallon gasoline and $5/diesel is eroding the global warming doctrine a bit?

No, for two reasons. One, the increased prices reflects increased demand for oil to burn, not reduced supply. Two, the supply, demand, and price of oil is irrelevant to testing the "doctrine" you are talking about. The hypothesis that global warming is happening, that is mostly man-made, and that will continue unless humanity strongly reduces the rate at which it produces greenhouse gasses, does not depend on the oil price for it to be true.

"Major economic and security crisis"? I find it fascinating how quickly some Republicans can forget their love of the free market just pecause they don't like the price of gas. Given that China and India need crude oil to propel their growing economies, it's a good thing its price is rising to $120 a gallon. Yes, it'll take people in industrial countries some getting used to, but it's much less bad than the alternatives. And if that slows global warming as a side effect, we can certainly live with this, too. This security crisis talk is hype, playing on people's aversion to change.

Aren't Republicans supposed to resist the liberal sense of entitlement that is allegedly pervading American culture? The fact ism nobody owes America cheap oil, and denying it is not an act of agression. So instead of whining about security risks, just suck it up and insulate your houses!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Germany is about half the size of Alaska, a little over a fourth bigger than Texas. To compare the demographics of any European country, other than Russia, to the USA is like comparing a small French villa to Paris. The dynamics, the way of life, and the expectations are different between the USA and European nations. The high fuel costs here have damaged the economy and will continue to do so until we do something about our dependence on imports of foreign oil. Fuel costs are very cheap in those countries supplying the expensive oil to the rest of us. Russia is struggling with high oil prices not because they do not produce enough oil for their own needs, but they lack sufficient refining capacity which is also a problem here in the USA.

Sorry, I didn't want to comapre anything to the greatness of the USA.
I just wanted to point at the fact that Europe in totaliter is used to fuel prices nearly three times above the US's since decades.
(We here in Germany just produce ... well, perhaps 1% of our oil.)

Petrol in Russia costs about $1.67/gallon, btw, and Russian refineries have large over capacities. And Russia
Besides that, I'd never heard before that Russia doesn't produce enough oil for their own needs - any source for that?

Foxfyre wrote:

But again my point was that I think maybe some of the more staunch AGW religionists may decide that unacceptably high fuel costs are more unpleasant than rethinking flawed doctrines re global warming.

I might have phrased that not clear enough: my point for posting these statistic and the additional details was exactly the same: those high fuel costs (years ago) led to consequences: wind enrgy, solar enrgy, a re-thinking of the irresponsible use of energy, efficient cars ...

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And is it possible that a major economic and security crisis of $4/gallon gasoline and $5/diesel is eroding the global warming doctrine a bit?

No, for two reasons. One, the increased prices reflects increased demand for oil to burn, not reduced supply. Two, the supply, demand, and price of oil is irrelevant to testing the "doctrine" you are talking about. The hypothesis that global warming is happening, that is mostly man-made, and that will continue unless humanity strongly reduces the rate at which it produces greenhouse gasses, does not depend on the oil price for it to be true.

"Major economic and security crisis"? I find it fascinating how quickly some Republicans can forget their love of the free market just pecause they don't like the price of gas. Given that China and India need crude oil to propel their growing economies, it's a good thing its price is rising to $120 a gallon. Yes, it'll take people in industrial countries some getting used to, but it's much less bad than the alternatives. And if that slows global warming as a side effect, we can certainly live with this, too. This security crisis talk is hype, playing on people's aversion to change.

Aren't Republicans supposed to resist the liberal sense of entitlement that is allegedly pervading American culture? The fact ism nobody owes America cheap oil, and denying it is not an act of agression. So instead of whining about security risks, just suck it up and insulate your houses!

I think you are missing the point, Thomas. I didn't suggest that anybody owes us cheapt oil. I am addressing the point that, for many if not most Americans, the current situation re high energy prices is unacceptable and it is seriously hurting many people here, it is costing jobs, and it is a drag on the economy, and it does put us at higher risk. Absolutely none of those points in any way violates a free market economy. By 'crisis' I mean a situation that is unacceptable to the people because it can be remedied.

How does it interfere with the free market for us to produce more or all of what we need? How is it a sense of entitlement to see the need to increase the supply of what we need? And if well intended government policies are creating unintended negative consequences, why should we just suck it up instead of seeking to change those policies? (IMO Conservatives do seem to be a bit more astute in identifying things like that than are liberals.)

Finally, how this relates to this thread is that it is the enviromental religionsts, probably all or most of whom are also the AGW religionists, who are attempting to block our ability to extract more of our own oil to meet our own needs. But such people usually expect others to pay to implement whatever their agenda might be. Now that it is hitting them in THEIR pocketbook too, I think we are beginning to see a crack in the dogma and perhaps we can look forward to a more rational response to this whole AGW thing.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Germany is about half the size of Alaska, a little over a fourth bigger than Texas. To compare the demographics of any European country, other than Russia, to the USA is like comparing a small French villa to Paris. The dynamics, the way of life, and the expectations are different between the USA and European nations. The high fuel costs here have damaged the economy and will continue to do so until we do something about our dependence on imports of foreign oil. Fuel costs are very cheap in those countries supplying the expensive oil to the rest of us. Russia is struggling with high oil prices not because they do not produce enough oil for their own needs, but they lack sufficient refining capacity which is also a problem here in the USA.

Sorry, I didn't want to comapre anything to the greatness of the USA.
I just wanted to point at the fact that Europe in totaliter is used to fuel prices nearly three times above the US's since decades.
(We here in Germany just produce ... well, perhaps 1% of our oil.)

Petrol in Russia costs about $1.67/gallon, btw, and Russian refineries have large over capacities. And Russia
Besides that, I'd never heard before that Russia doesn't produce enough oil for their own needs - any source for that?

Foxfyre wrote:
But again my point was that I think maybe some of the more staunch AGW religionists may decide that unacceptably high fuel costs are more unpleasant than rethinking flawed doctrines re global warming.

I might have phrased that not clear enough: my point for posting these statistic and the additional details was exactly the same: those high fuel costs (years ago) led to consequences: wind enrgy, solar enrgy, a re-thinking of the irresponsible use of energy, efficient cars ...

I have not opposed wind, solar, etc at any time. I have only pointed out that I do not believe these will ever supply all or most or probably even a lot of the USA energy needs. I do believe the human race will move on from today's energy grid into something better and more efficient as we have done throughout our history, but I believe we are going to need oil for the foreseeable future as we work toward making that transition which will surely take several more generations.

Nor did I say that Russia doesn't supply enough oil to meet its needs. I do believe they cannot refine enough oil to meet their needs with their current refining capacity. I could be wrong in my opinion of course, but here's a couple of quick links that at least in part supports it.

http://vladivostoktimes.com/show/?id=26605

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=26301

Meanwhile, I hope that we get it right on policy re global warming so that we do not do more damage than good with that policy.

0 Replies

The Nelson-Complexity-Index for Russian refineries is 5.0, the one for the USA is 10.0.
That's (= due to old technology) is the reason, Russian refineries refine only/mostly oil for domestic use ... at about 50% of what they could refine (but no-one outside Russia really needs these low-refined products).

0 Replies

It is certainly true that Europeans have, since WWII (and possibly beyond) paid much more for gasoline than have Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and most inhabitants of the Western hemisphere. This is a result of the democratically established tax and transportation policies of the European governments involved. Lacking petroleum reserves themselves (until the North Sea developments occurred) they instead chose to limit demand for gasoline through very high taxes on it and , in effect, to spend the money on largely government-built and managed rail transportation systems. Given the high density of European cities; present and past land use & development policies; and the relatively shorter average distances between urban centers there, this was indeed a rational choice for them.

Countries in the Western hemisphere, with generally much lower population densities; much larger distances between major cities; and themselves then enjoying ample petroleum reserves, simply made different, but equally rational choices. This isn't a U.S. vs European thing, and contemporary views of secular virtue with respect to the doctrines of AGW zealots had nothing to do with it on either side. As Thomas noted, the rise in the price of petroleum has everything to do with increasing demand in Asia, and very little else. In fact even the current price of gasoline in the U.S. is not particularly high compared to that (say) in 1950, if one takes into consideration the price escalation of everything else (incomes included) during the same period.

Even at $4.50/gallon for gasoline, urban rail transportation is still far more expensive that our current road/vehicle systems. We merely hide the real capital and operating cost differential through government subsidies for rail systems -- as the Europeans have long done. There is much good to be said for the European system, but it does require fundamentally different approaches to land management, urban design, and tax policies than prevail here. Moreover, the much greater distances between and within cities here may make the European model infeasible for us - even if we wanted it.

Politicians of all kinds are adept at pandering to the prejudices of their supporters. Republicans and Democrats are about equal in that respect. The differences is that the prejudices of Democrats are generally stupider than those of Republicans - sometimes not by much, but still enough to make the choice easy for a discerning person.

The fast rising price of petroleum and the export of wealth our imports entail are ample reason for us to rethink and restructure our energy production and distribution system. If some of the actions needed will reduce CO2 emissions, and even assuage the irrational preoccupations of credulous zealots who believe that, even though they can't get an accurate forecast for next month's local weather, they can rely on Al Gore's forecasts for the next century, then I am pleased with that as well.

The real key here for the U.S. and for every country is to have ample sources of cheap energy. If you have cheap energy, you can solve all the other problems - economic, environmental, transportation, etc. If you don't have cheap energy, you can't do anything.

For us the obvious solution is the rapid doubling of our nuclear generation capacity; the encouragement of the local & systematic use of wind and solar power where they offer economic advantages; encouraging the further availability of gas powered and hybrid vehicles; selected development of mass transportation systems; and the development of our own petroleum reserves in our coastal regions and the Arctic.

Except for hydroelectric, nuclear power (at 6.5 cents/KwHr) is our cheapest source by far. Doubling its output would liberate the natural gas we wastefully use to generate 17% of our electrical power, and make it immediately available for vehicles, hybrid or otherwise. It would also provide enough surplus electrical power to make plug-in hybrid vehicles a practical possibility. In some areas wind power is an economically beneficial right now: we should encourage its use and count on natural economic motives to spur the innovation needed to make it even more competitive and ubiquitous. Same goes for solar applications.

The stupidest things we can do would be to (1) legislate or subsidize the use of wind and solar power, thereby destroying the incentives for needed innovation; (2) Inhibit the further application of nuclear power, thereby requiring us to continue petroleum imports and/or expand the use of our ample coal; (3) continue the prohibition of the development of our own ample off shore and Arctic petroleum resources, thereby condemning us to export money to Arabia to purchase much more expensive alternatives. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is prescribed by the daffy duo of Nancy Pelosi & Larry Reid, and what is advocated by the all-wise and sainted hero, Obama.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Given the high density of European cities; present and past land use & development policies; and the relatively shorter average distances between urban centers there, this was indeed a rational choice for them.

I think this is where you make a mistake, George. Settling patterns are not a given, at least not anymore. They are a market response to the various costs and benefits of the places you can settle. In particular, your suburban settling patterns are a market response to low transportation costs. Increase the transportation costs, and the settling patterns will change towards what we now see in Europe.

As the economist Benjamin Stein once said, "if something cannot go on forever, it will stop." Even if current gas prices are an unsustainable drag to the American way of life -- and I'm not convinced they are -- there still is no need for government measures to make them stop. It doesn't even matter if those measures be opening up national parks to oil drilling, or increased CAFE standards. (Or even, sacrilege of all sacrileges, applying CAFE standards to SUVS!)

0 Replies

Charts and graphs aren't really my thing, but this one is instructive:

July 14, 2008
How Rising Gas Prices Hurt American Households
by Karen Campbell
Backgrounder #2162

The upward march of retail gasoline prices has affected U.S. households regardless of whether their members drive, take public transportation, or walk. In a modern economy, the interdependency created by supplying specialized labor and trading for all other goods and services produced by other people leaves virtually no one unaffected by the price of gas at the pump.

Analysts at The Heritage Foundation recently examined how going from $3 and $4 retail to $5 and $6 retail per gallon of gasoline would affect the U.S. economy. If prices continue to rise at an accelerated pace over the course of a year:[1]

Total employment would decrease by 586,000 jobs,
Disposable personal income would decrease by $532 billion,
Personal consumption expenditure would decrease by $400 billion, and
Personal savings would be spent to help pay the cost.
What the Numbers Mean

Table 1 shows what these numbers mean for three representative households' income, consumption, and saving patterns. The first column is the actual data from the 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey.[2] The simulated impact is in the second column for each type of household, and the third column shows the dollar loss for households.

The estimate is a best case in that mortgage and interest payments remain constant. More likely, increased borrowing and less saving will result in higher interest payments, constraining spending and decreasing the savings of households yet more. It also does not show the increased likelihood that a member of the household will be unemployed.

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/images/B2162_Table1.gif

LINK

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Given the high density of European cities; present and past land use & development policies; and the relatively shorter average distances between urban centers there, this was indeed a rational choice for them.

I think this is where you make a mistake, George. Settling patterns are not a given, at least not anymore. They are a market response to the various costs and benefits of the places you can settle. In particular, your suburban settling patterns are a market response to low transportation costs. Increase the transportation costs, and the settling patterns will change towards what we now see in Europe.

As the economist Benjamin Stein once said, "if something cannot go on forever, it will stop." Even if current gas prices are an unsustainable drag to the American way of life -- and I'm not convinced they are -- there still is no need for government measures to make them stop. It doesn't even matter if those measures be opening up national parks to oil drilling, or increased CAFE standards. (Or even, sacrilege of all sacrileges, applying CAFE standards to SUVS!)

I don't argue with the point you are making. However, I don't think it has much practical application to the question at hand. "Settlement patterns" can and do change as you noted. However, the time sacle for changes of the sort you appear to imply are very large compared to the dynamic at work here. Even the program I outlined would likely induce some changes in such "settlement patterns". However these developments occur voluntarily and slowly over time. They are properly a response to, not a direct object of, government policy.

If instead you are suggesting government action to mandate rapid change in "settlement patterns", then I would say you are putting far too much faith in the wisdom and incorruptability of government, and imagining a far greater willingness on the part of Americans for government to tell them how to live than they are realistically willing to accept. Moreover the cost and social disruption this would entail would, in my view, be prohibitive.

I haven't met any philosopher kings and I am very skeptical of Platocic thinkers in these areas.

0 Replies

Further, those of us pushing for ability to go after our own oil aren't wanting the government to solve or provide anything. All we want is for government to get out of the way so that the free market can function.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

If instead you are suggesting government action to mandate rapid change in "settlement patterns",

Far be it from me to suggest such an absurd thing! All I'm saying is that if the American way of life can't go on forever given the market price of oil, the American way of life will change -- no matter what the government does. And that's okay. I like the American way of life, but there's nothing holy about it, and I don't mind it changing.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Further, those of us pushing for ability to go after our own oil aren't wanting the government to solve or provide anything. All we want is for government to get out of the way so that the free market can function.

Actually you advocating that the government be FORCED to sell it's land. That's not free market, and yes you are asking the government to provide something.

T
K
O

0 Replies

But there is nothing wrong with wanting and working for a change for the better either. And yes, change is inevitable or we would still be using ox carts and wagons. But change just for the sake of change has proved to be of dubious value more than once.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Further, those of us pushing for ability to go after our own oil aren't wanting the government to solve or provide anything. All we want is for government to get out of the way so that the free market can function.

Actually you advocating that the government be FORCED to sell it's land. That's not free market, and yes you are asking the government to provide something.

T
K
O

I am advocating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We chose not to adopt a feudal system long ago and whatever authority and/or property is entrusted to government to manage is intended for promotion of the common welfare as it all collectively belongs to the people.

It is mega billions of the people's money that the government uses to buy oil elsewhere.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Further, those of us pushing for ability to go after our own oil aren't wanting the government to solve or provide anything. All we want is for government to get out of the way so that the free market can function.

Actually you advocating that the government be FORCED to sell it's land. That's not free market, and yes you are asking the government to provide something.

Well if you call asking the government to stop stupid and non productive interference in the proper choices of the citizenry, "asking the government to provide something", then I suppose you are right. By a similar logic we could imagine others asking the Nazis to "provide" life for the Jews of Europe by interrupting its systematic murders of them. However, I don't think that is the kind of logic that most of us employ.

0 Replies

Aw for crissakes this is all too serious for a Saturday afternoon - does everybody here know there's a party going on?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3342028#3342028

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well if you call asking the government to stop stupid and non productive interference in the proper choices of the citizenry, "asking the government to provide something", then I suppose you are right. By a similar logic we could imagine others asking the Nazis to "provide" life for the Jews of Europe by interrupting its systematic murders of them. However, I don't think that is the kind of logic that most of us employ.

This logic is emphatically not similar, as I suspect you know very well. Jewish lives in the Germany of the 1930s weren't the Nazis' to "provide" in the first place. By contrast, public land in America, and the resources under it, are the government's to provide, or keep to itself, or grant access to, or not. And all this is properly so. Your analogy just isn't analogous.

0 Replies

The analogy works when considering what is and what is not the role of government. The US Consitution was intended to make government the servant of the people; not the other way around. It is reasonable to expect the government to promote the common welfare as stated in the Preamble. Does the government do that best by withholding the people's land but using the people's money to buy oil and thereby keep the prices high? Or Does the government do that best by allowing the people to use their own land and produce their own oil and increase jobs and economic growth and bring down the costs for the most basic needs of the people?

Barack Obama wants to refund the people $1000 to help offset the cost of fuel. Bring down that cost to about half or less and you not only put $1000 in the pockets of the people but you also lower inflation, boost the economy, and create probably hundreds of thousands of jobs.

To me it is a no brainer.

0 Replies

Private drilling for oil in one-ten-thousandth of ANWR will provide a net increase, not decrease, in government tax revenue.

Private drilling for oil more than 12 miles off shore in what are international waters will do the same.

That increase in tax revenue will come from increased taxes collected from oil company profits plus an increase in tax revenue collected from the resulting growth of our private economy.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Well if you call asking the government to stop stupid and non productive interference in the proper choices of the citizenry, "asking the government to provide something", then I suppose you are right. By a similar logic we could imagine others asking the Nazis to "provide" life for the Jews of Europe by interrupting its systematic murders of them. However, I don't think that is the kind of logic that most of us employ.

This logic is emphatically not similar, as I suspect you know very well. Jewish lives in the Germany of the 1930s weren't the Nazis' to "provide" in the first place. By contrast, public land in America, and the resources under it, are the government's to provide, or keep to itself, or grant access to, or not. And all this is properly so. Your analogy just isn't analogous.

Well in this country "public land" is mostly the government's by default. It was left over in the settlement of the West and the government chose to keep it. There is very little such "public land" east of the Mississippi, and , apart from national parks, no reason for the government to keep or control it. We happily don't have any traditional residue of the "Kings Lands", and the current government holdings in the West are an anomolus leftover of the early settlement. Generally speaking the government isn't a particulary good, prptective or productive owner, and there really is no fundamental reason why the government should retain these properties. I would like to see all of it auctioned off without delay.

On that basis, my analogy is good enough.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know