High Fuel Prices are Sound Environmental Policy

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

The irony is that those who bitch about the overpopulation of the planet being the major cause of all problems, are the same ones bitching about the cost of tortillas in Mexico.

Really? I can't recall a single complaint about tortilla prices.

They're out there, but overpopulation is only one aspect of the problem. The reason that tortillas (corn) is more expensive is because we're stuffing it in our gas tanks instead of letting people eat it.
Once again, our government has chosen to support the wrong execution of the right idea. I'm waiting for them to come out and say "hey, we gave you an alternative and look how bad an idea it was. Oil is obviously the answer. We never should have thought otherwise."

[kallend 2,184]

I wonder how much better off we'd be if instead of spending a $Trillion or so stirring up trouble in the middle east and pissing off the rest of the world, we'd invested, say, half of that amount in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[base428 1]

If you're worried about the bottom line, then you shouldn't buy an electric car - especially the Chevy Volt. If you want to lessen our addiction to oil and spur new solar/wind/battery technologies, then keep your eye on several upcoming electric vehicles.

A side effect of increased use of electric vehicles is a reduced demand for oil. I can see a situation where electric vehicles become fairly popular, then gas prices drop due to low demand, and finally everyone will be happy again with their gas guzzlers. So, please don't rush to get in line behind me to buy the Chevy Volt.

Quote

For me the Volt would be 55% more expensive than a car that gets 17 MPG in the city with gas at $4/gallon.

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[shropshire 0]

£1.30 a litre (£5.90 = $11.62 an imperial Gallon) for Diesel today ... BASTARDS

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

Quote

wonder how much better off we'd be if instead of spending a $Trillion or so stirring up trouble in the middle east and pissing off the rest of the world, we'd invested, say, half of that amount in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

Nah... never work... on the short term war profiteering timelines within the limited time the administration has to get rich quick and get out.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I wonder how much better off we'd be if instead of spending a $Trillion or so stirring up trouble in the middle east and pissing off the rest of the world, we'd invested, say, half of that amount in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

I wonder how much better off we'd be if, instead spending trillion$ of dollar on self destructive social programs, and lots of other crap, we'd not take that money from citizens in the first place - so they can have the resources to invest in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how much better off we'd be if instead of spending a $Trillion or so stirring up trouble in the middle east and pissing off the rest of the world, we'd invested, say, half of that amount in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

I wonder how much better off we'd be if, instead spending trillion$ of dollar on self destructive social programs, and lots of other crap, we'd not take that money from citizens in the first place - so they can have the resources to invest in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

Social programs? You mean the farm bill and the defense budget?

Actually, none of it matters. Any money that comes out of our Treasury for R&D for alternative energies will be funneled to the oil companies so that they can sit on the patents for as long as possible. We'll make the actual shift to alternatives when they're good and ready. Maybe a little earlier if the public demands it or makes it happen on it's own.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how much better off we'd be if instead of spending a $Trillion or so stirring up trouble in the middle east and pissing off the rest of the world, we'd invested, say, half of that amount in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

I wonder how much better off we'd be if, instead spending trillion$ of dollar on self destructive social programs, and lots of other crap, we'd not take that money from citizens in the first place - so they can have the resources to invest in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

Wait, you want the people to have more money so that they can purchase things like current solar panels instead of the government having more money so that they can fund research in things like new solar panels (that the people can't afford to purchase) ... that is crazy.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder how much better off we'd be if instead of spending a $Trillion or so stirring up trouble in the middle east and pissing off the rest of the world, we'd invested, say, half of that amount in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

I wonder how much better off we'd be if, instead spending trillion$ of dollar on self destructive social programs, and lots of other crap, we'd not take that money from citizens in the first place - so they can have the resources to invest in R&D on alternative energy sources and fuel efficient technologies.

Wait, you want the people to have more money so that they can purchase things like current solar panels instead of the government having more money so that they can fund research in things like new solar panels (that the people can't afford to purchase) ... that is crazy.

People can choose to buy solar panels. They can also spend the money on jumps, food, women, booze, cars, - it's really none of my business. I only care that I'm not forcing others to align to my decisions. Except for corn tortillas, i want those very expensive to reflect the "total social cost" of making tortilla. The tortilla conglomerates have way too much power with the president and his cronies.

It's a crazy, out of control viewpoint.


(IDWhat - yeah, where I said "other crap" was a concurrence on the high defense budget also. Though that's a necessary function compared to the bulk of the budget, I think it's pretty bloated too. But that's not where all the money in the budget is. And farm bills? ethanol subsidies? those are definitely social redistribution programs?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[tfelber 0]

I originally opened this thread because I wanted to see if others were having the same thoughts as me. I did not intend to post but your post while outlining some very interesting facts tends to leave the reader with the idea that the oil companies are controlling the alternative fuel technology to further their fossil fuel markets.

I have a completely different theory on these actions and the reason the fuel prices continue to stay high. I believe what we will soon see is a diversification of oil companies primary market. They are controlling the progress of the technology until they feel they can control the market as they have with oil. They no longer will be oil companies, but energy companies. They will be who the alternative fuel technology will be bought through.

In line with this thinking, higher revenues give them the ability to invest in the technologies of the future that will transport things, whether this be electricity, fuel cells, bio-alternatives, or a combination of these and others. The increased R&D by the companies in this direction falls inline with many of the environmental goals of the government and special interest group. The government itself is not the most efficient entity to address many of these issues so why not let the “free market” approach solve the problem.

In the end everyone gets what they want and without increasing cost somewhere the money would never be available to overcome the situation. There are many people who are lining their pockets without thought of the bigger picture, but that is inevitable in a free market economy.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have a completely different theory on these actions and the reason the fuel prices continue to stay high. I believe what we will soon see is a diversification of oil companies primary market. They are controlling the progress of the technology until they feel they can control the market as they have with oil. They no longer will be oil companies, but energy companies. They will be who the alternative fuel technology will be bought through.

In line with this thinking, higher revenues give them the ability to invest in the technologies of the future that will transport things, whether this be electricity, fuel cells, bio-alternatives, or a combination of these and others. The increased R&D by the companies in this direction falls inline with many of the environmental goals of the government and special interest group. The government itself is not the most efficient entity to address many of these issues so why not let the “free market” approach solve the problem.

I think these two paragraphs disagree badly with each other. How is letting the oil companies hold back progress until they can dominate it a positive development? This is restraint.

These sorts of transitions are very bloody - many companies fall, new ones emerge to deal with the new reality. By your own description, they're trying to avoid that. Better for them, but that's not hardly a "free market" solving our problems.

Exxon Mobil is doing nothing at all with other energy. They're happy to admit it, focus on what they know. BP, otoh, is promoting themselves as a next gen energy company. We'll see, since their record over the past couple years suggests they don't even know oil that well.

[base428 1]

And here's a great example of exactly what you're talking about:

U.S. Nanowire Lithium-ion Battery Expert Gets a $10 Million Grant…From Saudi Arabia

Quote

...higher revenues give them the ability to invest in the technologies of the future that will transport things, whether this be electricity....

(c)2010 Vertical Visions. No unauthorized duplication permitted. <==For the media only

[tfelber 0]

In trying to keep my post as short as possible I did not fully expand on my thoughts. The oil companies blocked/controlling the new technologies first to protect themselves and now with the increased revenues they will be the industry leader in these technologies. It doesn't appear to me the original blocking/controlling strategy was to further their control of new energy but with the global push for alternatives and the increased revenues they were in a good position to exploit their previous actions.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In trying to keep my post as short as possible I did not fully expand on my thoughts. The oil companies blocked/controlling the new technologies first to protect themselves and now with the increased revenues they will be the industry leader in these technologies. It doesn't appear to me the original blocking/controlling strategy was to further their control of new energy but with the global push for alternatives and the increased revenues they were in a good position to exploit their previous actions.

So how is this good for all of us?

[tfelber 0]

It's good for most of us because we end up with alternative fuel modes of transportation that are better for the environment with a fuel source that is replenishable. For me, I'm sure there is enough oil to last my lifetime and I don't think any of the man made earth enders will happen while I'm alive, however I do have two kids that would appreciate the discoveries that this will bring about.

It may even reduce the cost of transportation in my lifetime which I wouldn't mind too much, which means the cost of a jump or getting to a dropzone would potentially decrease...

What was your question again?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

It's good for most of us because we end up with alternative fuel modes of transportation that are better for the environment with a fuel source that is replenishable.

We can have that right now, with decade old technology.

Quote

For me, I'm sure there is enough oil to last my lifetime and I don't think any of the man made earth enders will happen while I'm alive, however I do have two kids that would appreciate the discoveries that this will bring about.

I have two kids too. I'd prefer that they don't suffer from the consequences of oil driven foreign policy, that they get a better education because I was able to put more money in their college accounts instead of my gas tank, and that their lungs, brains and the remainder of their bodies develop without being subjected to fossil fuel pollutants.
As for the idea of letting the market solve the issue, how can suppressing, or in some cases repossessing and destroying the technology that the consumer wants in order to maximize profits with old technology considered letting the market decide? A market driven solution would involve letting the consumer buy what they want.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What was your question again?

My question is how are we better off letting self interesting oil companies squashing progress till they feel its in their own interest rather than having the Feds drive it more strongly back 30 years ago when Solar started up?

Your fantasy is that big oil will solve the problem in time, but I see little historical precidence for this. Did the swordfish industry solve their problem? No - there's virtually no commercial fishery of any sort off the Atlantic now. Man in general and big business in particular consistently destroys the resource, not finds ways to manage it. The ROI on emergenging tech is very low - it's far more common for the university to do the first legs on the federal dime.

Had the DC taken a real leadership role, the country would be better off now. I don't know how much better the global oil picture would be, but we'd be better off.