In order to deal with the energy crisis, the Feds should...

[kelpdiver 2]

Pick up to 3 choices as best immediate steps Washington DC should take to deal with this crisis. If you don't believe there is a problem, pick #1. If you don't like the way I describe your preferred pick (all will be highly sarcastic), select it anyway, then respond with why it is best. For non Americans, try to avoid the urge to punish us for being pigs, select what you think it most productive.

----
With oil/gas prices going up so dramatically over the past 5 years, America is at a critical point. Many would argue we hit it 35 years ago during the oil shocks of the 70s, but as memories faded, in came the SUV. Many people here have in the past few years argued that the market forces would correct. Once again, didn't work out well. I believe the Feds need to act to immediately cut use by 20%, and by 50% in the next decade, or our position in the world will slip substantially.

Options:

1) Do nothing. This is a bubble, people will adjust by driving less, and it will settle down. No goverment intervention is necessary. It's still 1955 and the world is swell.

2) Release the Strategic Reserve, drill Alaska. Cut prices 10cents while pissing away our last resort resources.

3) Invade Mexico and/or Canada. (I prefer the Canucks, myself) It worked for Japan in the 30s, right?

4) Mandate CAFE increase of 30% for 2010 (maybe 2011) model year. Light trucks to be included in this.

5) Use the Euro model of gas taxation to reduce usage. Think $2 per gallon. Money would be slated either to mass transit (euro model) or debt reduction only. Perhaps attempt to give everyone a break on the first XXX gallons (not sure how to implement without more trouble than gain, however).

6) Highly incenticize or mandate 20% telecommuting at large business, with goal of 40%. In the past, governments have does similar steps to encourage flex time so the morming and evening commutes would be more distributed, as well to encourage carpooling. This would take it a step further and push employers to have their workers stay at home one day a week. One day/week won't quite get the 20% savings, since many will use the opportunity to run errands. Two days would, and dramatically improve the traffic picture, which also unneccesarily consumes fuel. Companies that use a hotelling cubible system will benefit from less office space needed. If mandated, could combine carpooling and telecommuting totals to make targets.

7) Invest heavily in alternative energy and drivetrains. (IOW, more kickbacks to corn growers) This could mean hydrogen cells, cellulosic ethanol, nuclear combined with plugins.

8) Mandated car design changes - less weight, better aerodynamics (no more Dodges). Lowering the mass is as effective as a hybrid engine.

9) Punitive gas guzzler taxes - as an alternative to CAFE increase, just make people pay $1000 per mpg in deficit.

10) Return to a national speed limit. 60mph makes the math easy.

11) anything else?

[AggieDave 6]

11) Mandate alternative fuel research and implementation within a limited time frame, while allowing for new drilling in the pacific, eastern side of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic, Colorado, Alaska...

There's good for the environment, then there's allowing an economy to collapse under the strain of fuel prices.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[DougH 270]

12. Begin taking over the world with strategic nuclear attacks!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

12. Begin taking over the world with strategic nuclear attacks!

Too ambitious - can we start smaller? Maybe shoot a few cruise missiles at aspirin factories or something?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Capitalism and the free market has made America strong; why abandon it now?

[billvon 3,132]

Increase CAFE standards.
Fund research into alternatives via reward-based incentives.
Encourage alternate energy growth via tax-based incentives.
Make changes to zoning laws to encourage/require people-compatible communities (i.e. communities where cars are not required for everything.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Make changes to zoning laws to encourage/require people-compatible communities (i.e. communities where cars are not required for everything.)

I had meant to include this one, but I don't view it as a 2008 solution with immediate results, rather one that should be debated and implemented in the next term (2009-2011).

---
If people want to flesh out the discussion a bit, why are the criticisms I list of your choice not valid? Or the bigger question - should the government take charge of the situation? I think we should treat this matter as seriously and heavy handedly as we did 9/11, as anything less will likely result in more inaction.

And how come no one has voted for the 60 limit yet?

[TheBachelor 5]

1) Open up ANWR and The Gulf of Mexico for drilling.
2) Fast-track new refineries. South Dakota voters just approved the first new refinery IN 32 YEARS.
3) Fast-track new nuclear power plants.
4) Lift tarriffs on foreign ethanol. Foreign ethanol is subject to a 54-cents-per-gallon tariff and a 2.5 percent duty. This discourages imports, such as potentially cheaper sugar cane-based ethanol from Brazil and other countries.

Read, set, FLAME AWAY!

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[billvon 3,132]

>why are the criticisms I list of your choice not valid?

>1) Do nothing.

Hasn't worked so well to date.

>2) Release the Strategic Reserve, drill Alaska.

We will someday need that oil to keep our military going. It's nuts to deplete our last large reserve it so people can "pour it on tires and burn it" (as one poster in another thread proudly announced he would do.) Or (more likely) use it to drive their SUV 60 miles to and from work every day.

>3) Invade Mexico and/or Canada.

Not worth answering.

>5) Use the Euro model of gas taxation to reduce usage.

This will happen with or without increased taxes. Make gas taxes pay for what they are intended for (ex: highway maintenance) and that's it.

>6) Highly incenticize or mandate 20% telecommuting at large
>business, with goal of 40%.

The law of unintended consequences would creep in here. Government incentives for keeping people home just seems to be a huge opportunity for abuse.

>8) Mandated car design changes - less weight, better aerodynamics
>(no more Dodges). Lowering the mass is as effective as a hybrid
>engine.

CAFE requirements will do this much more effectively than a government bureaucrat who tries to out-think an experienced automotive engineer.

>9) Punitive gas guzzler taxes - as an alternative to CAFE increase, just
>make people pay $1000 per mpg in deficit.

Again, let car designers figure this one out under stricter CAFE laws. That's one of the effects of CAFE anyway.

>10) Return to a national speed limit. 60mph makes the math easy.

Two minds about this. Probably not needed but would be a quick and easy way to reduce gas consumption.

[billvon 3,132]

>2) Fast-track new refineries.

Gasoline demand is dropping. How will more refinery capacity help lower prices, if we are OK with capacity we have now and it will decline in the future?

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Pick up to 3 choices as best immediate steps Washington DC should take to deal with this crisis. If you don't believe there is a problem, pick #1. If you don't like the way I describe your preferred pick (all will be highly sarcastic), select it anyway, then respond with why it is best. For non Americans, try to avoid the urge to punish us for being pigs, select what you think it most productive.

----
With oil/gas prices going up so dramatically over the past 5 years, America is at a critical point. Many would argue we hit it 35 years ago during the oil shocks of the 70s, but as memories faded, in came the SUV. Many people here have in the past few years argued that the market forces would correct. Once again, didn't work out well. I believe the Feds need to act to immediately cut use by 20%, and by 50% in the next decade, or our position in the world will slip substantially.

Options:

1) Do nothing. This is a bubble, people will adjust by driving less, and it will settle down. No goverment intervention is necessary. It's still 1955 and the world is swell.

2) Release the Strategic Reserve, drill Alaska. Cut prices 10cents while pissing away our last resort resources.

3) Invade Mexico and/or Canada. (I prefer the Canucks, myself) It worked for Japan in the 30s, right?

4) Mandate CAFE increase of 30% for 2010 (maybe 2011) model year. Light trucks to be included in this.

5) Use the Euro model of gas taxation to reduce usage. Think $2 per gallon. Money would be slated either to mass transit (euro model) or debt reduction only. Perhaps attempt to give everyone a break on the first XXX gallons (not sure how to implement without more trouble than gain, however).

6) Highly incenticize or mandate 20% telecommuting at large business, with goal of 40%. In the past, governments have does similar steps to encourage flex time so the morming and evening commutes would be more distributed, as well to encourage carpooling. This would take it a step further and push employers to have their workers stay at home one day a week. One day/week won't quite get the 20% savings, since many will use the opportunity to run errands. Two days would, and dramatically improve the traffic picture, which also unneccesarily consumes fuel. Companies that use a hotelling cubible system will benefit from less office space needed. If mandated, could combine carpooling and telecommuting totals to make targets.

7) Invest heavily in alternative energy and drivetrains. (IOW, more kickbacks to corn growers) This could mean hydrogen cells, cellulosic ethanol, nuclear combined with plugins.

8) Mandated car design changes - less weight, better aerodynamics (no more Dodges). Lowering the mass is as effective as a hybrid engine.

9) Punitive gas guzzler taxes - as an alternative to CAFE increase, just make people pay $1000 per mpg in deficit.

10) Return to a national speed limit. 60mph makes the math easy.

11) anything else?

How bout drilling for our own oil and building new refineries. Works for me.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>why are the criticisms I list of your choice not valid?

The question was to defend your preferred options, but the alternative is fine too.

If any of these were a slam dunk, it would have been done already. But all require at least some level of sacrifice, and if people won't do it voluntarily, the nation's security warrants forces it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>2) Fast-track new refineries.

Gasoline demand is dropping. How will more refinery capacity help lower prices, if we are OK with capacity we have now and it will decline in the future?

Yes, as I suggest here, we want to drop usage by 50%. I can't speak to how much industrial (trains, trucks, etc) use makes up of the total, but if private usage were reduced by that amount there would be little call for more refineries unless they offered some technology improvement as well.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And how come no one has voted for the 60 limit yet?

I did. Air resistance at 70 mph is 36% higher than air resistance at 60 mph. Or, put another way, air resistance at 60 mph is over 26% less than air resistance at 70 mph.

It seems like a reduction in the speed limit could immediately result in improved fuel efficiency, albeit only for traveling on the highway.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It seems like a reduction in the speed limit could immediately result in improved fuel efficiency, albeit only for traveling on the highway.

To the degree that people respect the speed limit, fear the highway patrol. Generally people have been shown to pick a speed they feel is safe. Having spent a decade going 75, they may not retreat.

But I have noticed a lot more people going 65 (CA's limit) now then I did last year, so many people are already self opting for fuel economy.

This is actually a very simple car design change I forgot about - if all US cars had fuel consumption meters like elsewhere, people would have the information to choose to be more efficient in their driving.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

To the degree that people respect the speed limit, fear the highway patrol. Generally people have been shown to pick a speed they feel is safe. Having spent a decade going 75, they may not retreat.

You might be right. I have always assumed that most speeders drive at some speed relative to the speed limit such as 5 or 10 mph over the limit. But people may well stick with 75-80 mph speeds.

Quote

But I have noticed a lot more people going 65 (CA's limit) now then I did last year, so many people are already self opting for fuel economy.

I started driving the speed limit when gas hit about $2.50 per gallon. It actually made driving less stressful, since I could largely stay in the right lane without having to change lanes to pass people, which was an unexpected bonus.

These days, I don't drive at all, for the most part. I walk almost everywhere, occasionally taking public transportation or catching a ride with someone already "headed that way." I did drive a friend's car yesterday (first time I've been behind the wheel in over six months) to run an errand for him, but he would have made the trip if I hadn't. Still, I found myself being careful to obey speed limits for fuel economy reasons.

Quote

This is actually a very simple car design change I forgot about - if all US cars had fuel consumption meters like elsewhere, people would have the information to choose to be more efficient in their driving.

Good call. While I have no doubt some people wouldn't care much, I'm equally confident some people would care a great deal if they had real time data regarding fuel consumption.


I also voted for changes in CAFE requirements and increased research in alternative fuel sources.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,184]

Get rid of dumb traffic lights. Re-engineer traffic systems to eliminate built-in congestion.

...

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

[JohnRich 4]

None of your options mentioned drilling for more oil domestically, or relaxing the rules for doing so...

[idrankwhat 0]

I couldn't find precisely the vote I was looking for but my vote is to follow Cali's 1990's lead (that they abandoned) and have the federal government mandate that a small percentage of cars meet zero emission standards. 3% over 8 years was enough to get most of the manufacturers on board in the '90s. And that was only one state! Make it nationwide, as it is indeed in our national interests, and the electric cars will be built.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

How bout drilling for our own oil and building new refineries. Works for me.

Because those are just talking points. I asked this in another thread and I'm not sure if anyone tried to answer it. Sorry if I missed it.

1) That oil is not "ours" as in a national sense. How would we benefit at the pump when global demand is high and the oil companies' primary responsibility is to themselves? I don't know if we still do it but for years we used to send most of the oil that came from Alaska to Asia because it was more profitable for the industry.

2) Why would an oil company build a refinery when we already have all the gas we need and by increasing output, they would decrease the value of their product? That basically means spending money to make less. What incentive would an oil company have to do that?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

None of your options mentioned drilling for more oil domestically, or relaxing the rules for doing so...

Option 2, if you read the text.

So you think we should only worry about the supply, and do nothing to curb the demand? Exactly how much more oil do you think we can find in Alaska and offshore, and for how long?

That will do little to lower the price, and continue the failed policy of nothing from the last 30 years.

[kelpdiver 2]

I think the question I'm really trying to ask here is how much personal sacrifice are you willing to make to solve this problem?

Heavy investment into alternative energy means spending 100s of billions, not merely increasing it 100% from the piddling levels of now.

Some of the other options are more dollars straight out of pocket, or accepting 'less functional' cars than the suburbans many would prefer. Or less safety than their tank gave them when they crashed into a yugo. Individual sacrifice for the national good. That's not been done since WWII, I suspect.

[DZJ 0]

How do you define 'solve'? Barring an fairly extremely spectacular technological leap I think managing the problem is as much as we can hope for, and even that may take some significant changes in lifestyle.

[nerdgirl 0]

#13) Make more dinosaurs and Paleozoic and Mesozoic marine plankton & algae.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

#13) Make more dinosaurs and Paleozoic and Mesozoic marine plankton & algae.

See, that's why we let you nerds hang around; you guys have good ideas.