hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 24, 2008 16:22:51 GMT -5
hifi: I am not suggesting I support toll roads as a solution to getting people to drive less. People should be able to drive as much or as little as they want. Nice strawman, though. What I am suggesting is that roads cost money, and as the cost of transportation rises in America we are likely to see a reduction in both the need for superhighways 40 miles from dense urban areas AND funding for such superhighways. However, there will continue to be a need for road improvement and maintenance. It is my opinion that those of us who choose to use the roads and cause new overpasses in the exurbs to be built should pay more to fund them than those who do not, the same way that someone who rides the bus or subway buys a ticket. The idea that the federal and state governments should continue to fund free public roads at the rate they did during the era of supercheap gasoline seems silly and wasteful to me. If someone chooses to drive long distances to work, fine. As I have stated previously in this thread, I am one of those people. But I and others should be prepared to pay more for our commutes, for similar reasons to why a ticket from West Falls Church to the Capitol costs more than a ticket from Metro Center to the Capitol. The strawman was entirely unintentional. I honestly thought that one of the points you were making was that by making it expensive enough on those who drive more, we would effectively curb driving to a degree and therefore cut down on the need/expenses of roadwork. If that was not one of your suggestions, then I apologize. My point was that EVEN IF that can be shown -- and simple economics would suggest so -- then that still shouldn't be our "goal." We shouldn't focus on trying to cut down on driving (or anything else for that matter) by making it more and more cost prohibitive. I understand there is a degree of that in everything. Again, simple proven economic theory tells us that the more you subsidize, fund or in any other way encourage something, that you get more of that something. Similarly, the more you regulate, tax or otherwise restrict something, the less you get of that something. As to your second point, I'm not sure I agree there either. You say that we shouldn't spend "all this" money on roads since transportation costs are so high. Interesting concept, but I see several problems. Right off the bat, the first issue would be that "transportation costs" rise and fall. We can't decide to build roads based on how much it costs today. Granted, there is obviously some correlation between today's costs and tomorrow's -- when the road will be used. But still, that logic seems inherently flawed to me. Secondly, if transportation costs are high, then it would seem like we should be attempting to help lessen them. I don't see how fewer roads accomplish that. Again, I am not sure that we are nearly in disagreement to the degree that it would seem, but some of what we each say, sure give that impression. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 24, 2008 22:15:16 GMT -5
Even with tolls, highways never pay for themselves, they're always going to be subsidized. I would think any person looking to build private roads would shy from engaging in such a money-losing operation. Los Españoles disagree with you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CintraTo be fair, most of their roads are already in existence, and you never feel good when the governor "refused to release many of the details" of the deal. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 24, 2008 22:21:00 GMT -5
I didn't mean to imply you didn't think our relationship to China wasn't important. I just see a rather dismissive or flippant attitude--or rather a significant downplaying--regarding China in general that I wanted to highlight, not that this is necessarily your position, that seems to be growing into apathetic nonaction. I wouldn't necessarily push for Reaganesque military expansion, but any discussion regarding energy has to recognize that a prime driver of energy costs currently relates to China, and the explosion in demand expected over the next 20-40 years from China and India have every possibility of further throwing the supply/demand curve out of whack. How that remains incapable of pushing the regulatory environment toward incentivizing alternatives beyond mere talk is beyond me. I will meet you halfway on that. I do recognize the tremendous increase in demand that will certainly, positively, without-a-doubt happen in the next decade as India and China continue to develop. But the underlying precursor to such discussions is constantly that we are "running out" of oil, or even worse, already running out of oil. I recognize the idea that we are dealing with a somewhat limited resource. But I am not convinced that the situation is nearly as dire as made out by many. There are vast expanses of oil yet to be tapped at all, not to mention the huge reserves that we have set aside as a safety net. That being said, I am not the head in the sand ostrich, oblivious to any potential dangers. I guess the point is that, as with the global warming issue, there is reason to be prudent and to use care and concern, effectively erring on the side of caution. But that is not the same as the "sky is falling" attitude that some show now. We aren't "running out of oil" nor is the earth "warming" ... at least to the impending doom level that some suggest. All of that being said, I think we need to drill and use more of our oil while at the same time subsidizing research and development in the areas of alternative/renewable sources. Solar and wind are the obvious one to me, but the entire biodiesel market seems rather potentially rewarding as well. Wow. I don't even know how to respond to this. I'm not sure how any type of qualitative argument can be posited for the case that demand for oil far outstrips the replacement of supply, and I'm not going to bother. Also whether or not the world "warms" is pretty indisputable based on the best evidence available, so again, I find no real use in disputing hope or faith. What the limits of the current expansion in global temperature are remains to be seen, but the evidence speaks pretty clearly to variations in global temperature to place that firmly in the world of reality, so I am not sure what your argument aims to justify. Whether or not the world is full of replacement oil or not, oil is not a sustainable resource, and the entire purpose of energy policy searching for alternatives is to find sustainable sources of energy, as such sources reduce pollution, are scalable to consumption (unlike oil), and generally create a net-neutral at worst impact on the environment. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 25, 2008 10:34:15 GMT -5
I will meet you halfway on that. I do recognize the tremendous increase in demand that will certainly, positively, without-a-doubt happen in the next decade as India and China continue to develop. But the underlying precursor to such discussions is constantly that we are "running out" of oil, or even worse, already running out of oil. I recognize the idea that we are dealing with a somewhat limited resource. But I am not convinced that the situation is nearly as dire as made out by many. There are vast expanses of oil yet to be tapped at all, not to mention the huge reserves that we have set aside as a safety net. That being said, I am not the head in the sand ostrich, oblivious to any potential dangers. I guess the point is that, as with the global warming issue, there is reason to be prudent and to use care and concern, effectively erring on the side of caution. But that is not the same as the "sky is falling" attitude that some show now. We aren't "running out of oil" nor is the earth "warming" ... at least to the impending doom level that some suggest. All of that being said, I think we need to drill and use more of our oil while at the same time subsidizing research and development in the areas of alternative/renewable sources. Solar and wind are the obvious one to me, but the entire biodiesel market seems rather potentially rewarding as well. Wow. I don't even know how to respond to this. I'm not sure how any type of qualitative argument can be posited for the case that demand for oil far outstrips the replacement of supply, and I'm not going to bother. Also whether or not the world "warms" is pretty indisputable based on the best evidence available, so again, I find no real use in disputing hope or faith. What the limits of the current expansion in global temperature are remains to be seen, but the evidence speaks pretty clearly to variations in global temperature to place that firmly in the world of reality, so I am not sure what your argument aims to justify. Whether or not the world is full of replacement oil or not, oil is not a sustainable resource, and the entire purpose of energy policy searching for alternatives is to find sustainable sources of energy, as such sources reduce pollution, are scalable to consumption (unlike oil), and generally create a net-neutral at worst impact on the environment. I'm not sure what your antagonistic tone comes from. All I was saying was that the impending doom because we are running out of oil is a bit overblown. That being said, we should still expand research in alternative/renewable/sustainable fuels. Similarly, the impending doom from global warming is a bit overstated at this point. But also similarly, it is still wise to act responsibly with such negative effects as potential consequences. Why in the world do you find such a reasonable view so hard to understand? |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 25, 2008 15:09:01 GMT -5
Wow. I don't even know how to respond to this. I'm not sure how any type of qualitative argument can be posited for the case that demand for oil far outstrips the replacement of supply, and I'm not going to bother. Also whether or not the world "warms" is pretty indisputable based on the best evidence available, so again, I find no real use in disputing hope or faith. What the limits of the current expansion in global temperature are remains to be seen, but the evidence speaks pretty clearly to variations in global temperature to place that firmly in the world of reality, so I am not sure what your argument aims to justify. Whether or not the world is full of replacement oil or not, oil is not a sustainable resource, and the entire purpose of energy policy searching for alternatives is to find sustainable sources of energy, as such sources reduce pollution, are scalable to consumption (unlike oil), and generally create a net-neutral at worst impact on the environment. I'm not sure what your antagonistic tone comes from. All I was saying was that the impending doom because we are running out of oil is a bit overblown. That being said, we should still expand research in alternative/renewable/sustainable fuels. Similarly, the impending doom from global warming is a bit overstated at this point. But also similarly, it is still wise to act responsibly with such negative effects as potential consequences. Why in the world do you find such a reasonable view so hard to understand? I don't know where you found an antagonistic tone, and while "the sky is falling" school of dwindling oil supply may be overstated does not exactly address the artificial supply bottlenecks, nor does it move forward the necessary research and development to prepare for a post-oil world. But that's not what I found so offensive about your post. The points you attempted to create to justify your argument are rather patently false: Your logic appears to be that since we are neither running out of oil, nor is the earth warming, that real advance in non-oil based energy, while prudent, is not necessarily essential. I find it rather difficult to allow such sublime falsehoods to self-perpetuate, however I can understand that given the current environment why such a position would even be convincing for some. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 25, 2008 15:35:59 GMT -5
Fewfac(ts) wrote:
Quote:We aren't "running out of oil" nor is the earth "warming" ...
Your logic appears to be that since we are neither running out of oil, nor is the earth warming, that real advance in non-oil based energy, while prudent, is not necessarily essential. I find it rather difficult to allow such sublime falsehoods to self-perpetuate, however I can understand that given the current environment why such a position would even be convincing for some.
Ok, I see what you meant. You missed my point entirely. As I have said repeatedly, I think research and development of alternative fuels is important and a worthy cause. That being said, we aren't remotely close to running out of oil. That is all I was saying.
Secondly, I see how you might have thought that I was connecting the two issues -- oil and global warming. That wasn't my intention at all though. That was my mistake to not make that clear. I just meant that the "scarcity" and "dwindling supplies" of oil is a largely exaggerated problem. Similarly, at this point, the global warming issue is equally overblown. That was all I am saying.
You take me a bit out of context when you post that quote all along. I put "running out of oil" in quotes for a reason. Obviously we are using oil and at an increasing pace. By most studies we have, "new" oil isn't being created at the same pace. So while it does appear that we are using more than is being developed, therefore technically "running out of oil," my point was that it isn't nearly the danger at present that some make it out to be.
"Warming" was put in quotes for similar reasoning. While recent studies suggest a warming trend, the "sky is falling" danger that global warming is presented as, simply isn't the case right now. Will it be in the future? Maybe, maybe not. So when I said the earth isn't "warming," what I was saying was that this imminent doom of global warming isn't nearly as it is often presented. I wasn't denying that recently the earth isn't warmer than it was previously. Do you see the difference between those two positions?
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 25, 2008 15:54:58 GMT -5
Fewfac(ts) wrote: Quote:We aren't "running out of oil" nor is the earth "warming" ...
Your logic appears to be that since we are neither running out of oil, nor is the earth warming, that real advance in non-oil based energy, while prudent, is not necessarily essential. I find it rather difficult to allow such sublime falsehoods to self-perpetuate, however I can understand that given the current environment why such a position would even be convincing for some. Ok, I see what you meant. You missed my point entirely. As I have said repeatedly, I think research and development of alternative fuels is important and a worthy cause. That being said, we aren't remotely close to running out of oil. That is all I was saying. Secondly, I see how you might have thought that I was connecting the two issues -- oil and global warming. That wasn't my intention at all though. That was my mistake to not make that clear. I just meant that the "scarcity" and "dwindling supplies" of oil is a largely exaggerated problem. Similarly, at this point, the global warming issue is equally overblown. That was all I am saying. You take me a bit out of context when you post that quote all along. I put "running out of oil" in quotes for a reason. Obviously we are using oil and at an increasing pace. By most studies we have, "new" oil isn't being created at the same pace. So while it does appear that we are using more than is being developed, therefore technically "running out of oil," my point was that it isn't nearly the danger at present that some make it out to be. "Warming" was put in quotes for similar reasoning. While recent studies suggest a warming trend, the "sky is falling" danger that global warming is presented as, simply isn't the case right now. Will it be in the future? Maybe, maybe not. So when I said the earth isn't "warming," what I was saying was that this imminent doom of global warming isn't nearly as it is often presented. I wasn't denying that recently the earth isn't warmer than it was previously. Do you see the difference between those two positions? I understood what you meant the first time. As you might be able to tell, I'm somewhat hyperprecise. Unfortunately, while you may not have intended the connections, that is still the conclusions I reach. I sort of see your argument as making the correct conclusions from the wrong math, if that makes any sense. The problem then becomes one of conditioning to an illogical process, that is then prone to error. As a result, troubleshooting becomes impossible. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 25, 2008 16:05:41 GMT -5
Fair enough, and as I indicated, looking back that was a natural connection to see, given that the issues are related. WRT global warming, I do think I have a very reasonable opinion. I don't think that global warming is proven. In fact, I think that when you analyze the data, it is very difficult to conclude with any certainty that it's even a realistic possibility. Still I think it is wise to operate as if it is happening. In that regard, like many other issues, I am really a moderate -- neither ultra conservative, nor ultra-liberal. The only time I really get too worked up about it, is when someone on either side tries to suggest that those that don't hold the same views are "denying science," or the sort.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 25, 2008 16:11:19 GMT -5
While we sit here and fret about all of this, Russia's going to take over the world, you're all aware of that, right? And I frakkin' hate vodka.  |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 25, 2008 17:16:43 GMT -5
There may be lots of oil left, but there's not much cheap oil left. Most of the remaining oil is in places where it's very difficult (i.e. expensive) to extract, so it'll only be economical to extract it if prices go up.
If oil stays as our main energy source, our energy costs will shoot through the roof in the coming years regardless of how much oil there is left.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 25, 2008 17:39:50 GMT -5
The "scarcity" of oil is very much a problem. A very real problem. Is the world going to run out of oil any time soon? no But, more importantly, the world has already reached "Peak Oil". That means the amount of oil produced by the combined efforts of oil producing nations has peaked. No -- this isn't a Democratic scare tactic. it is an Oil Industry fact. All the oil industry insiders know this already. No amount of additional drilling is going to make up for the decline of production from existing sources. A few people think we still have another couple years before the peak.... but all industry experts think the peak has either happened or shortly will. Already peaked? A study by the German Government sponsored Energy Watch Group, oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, and the former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, Sadad al-Huseini have all recently supported the view that global crude oil production has peaked www.energybulletin.net/primer.phpSo what does that mean? It means that no country in the world today can expect to get more oil in future years unless someone else is getting less. Given the enormous increase in demand from China and India, the Demand for limited oil supplies is going to far exceed even what we've seen in recent years. It is apparent that increasing competition for limited oil supplies is going to lead to more and more severe conflicts. That is why China has been buying up oil rights from places like Sudan... and all over the world. What's the solution? Develop alternative energy sources as fast as possible -- and emphasize technologies and practices to achieve far greater energy efficiency...everywhere. This isn't going to "wreck" the economy. Quite the opposite. it is going to create Enormous new opportunities because these new energy sources and the efficiencies are needed all over the world. Since all three reasons to get off oil are so overwhelmingly compelling (Economics, Environment, Security), it should be very easy to get the country mobilized behind developing alternative energy sources. Operative words there are "should be". Even those who still wish to doubt of deny climate change can see the other two reasons. Given the common ground among all the reason, and the extreme urgency, the next president will have to make energy and efficiency Top priorities. |
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 25, 2008 19:09:40 GMT -5
While we sit here and fret about all of this, Russia's going to take over the world, you're all aware of that, right? And I frakkin' hate vodka. The threat of Kournikova blitzing the field at Flushing Meadows remains high. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 26, 2008 11:06:55 GMT -5
OK, I think we have pretty much covered this topic ad nauseum. We have enough common ground here, and a bit of a difference of opinion.
We are in agreement as to the long term importance of developing alternative and ideally those of renewable/sustainable sources.
We disagree apparently as to the issue of additional oil drilling. I am in favor of the increased refinement of oil, whether it be in the Gulf of Mexico or the ANWR area, or most anywhere else for that matter.
In the case of ANWR, I think that is almost a no-brainer. The costs will be significantly less due to the current pipeline we already have. Something less that 100 miles (80 is the number that sticks in my mind ... 76 to be precise) is all that would be needed to patch ANWR into the existing pipeline. With improvements in technology, we can now extract oil from places that were not financially feasible in the past. Additionally, safeguards preventing spills and other secondary costs have improved dramatically.
I guess the bottom line here is whether it is an "either/or" issue. I don't think it is. I think that piping into domestic oil should be a part of whatever energy policy we choose.
Finally, note to Boz:
I used to not be much of a vodka fan, but I have now seen the light. In all seriousness, we have several grapefruit trees. I'll tell you what, some fresh squeezed grapefruit juice with vodka is pretty damn good.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 26, 2008 11:33:53 GMT -5
You take me a bit out of context when you post that quote all along. I put "running out of oil" in quotes for a reason. Obviously we are using oil and at an increasing pace. By most studies we have, "new" oil isn't being created at the same pace. So while it does appear that we are using more than is being developed, therefore technically "running out of oil," my point was that it isn't nearly the danger at present that some make it out to be. If oil becomes prohibitively expensive (think T. Boone Pickens' call of $12 a gallon this decade), or we have rationing and you have to sit in a 4:30 AM gas line for hours a la the 1970's, does it really make a difference semantically whether we are "running out of oil" or whether there's just going to be less of it and there' going to be demand that far outstrips it? |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 26, 2008 12:14:48 GMT -5
TC, to me or you I would agree that it doesn't matter. But that is an entirely different point. If, supply is tightened to keep the price up and shift the supply/demand intersection upward and to the left, then the effect that we might feel individually in the short term would be the same as if there was a legitimate shortage. Simple economics 101 tells us that the free market will take care of that -- collustion and the sort not withstanding. However, on the grand scale of things, yes it makes a huge difference. If we are running short on oil because of legislation that keeps us from extracting and refining the oil we are in an entirely different situation and have an entirely different problem than if we are actually running out of oil. I see your point to a degree, but the answer to your question is "yes," there is a significant difference.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 27, 2008 7:31:48 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 28, 2008 11:29:54 GMT -5
I just saw an ad on MSNBC for a solar company. I don't know anything about them in particular, but I called for a free brochure. The ad emphasized that the system is free in many states because of government incentives. The phone number is 800-306-4172 for anyone interested.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Jul 29, 2008 23:45:30 GMT -5
More relevant to me is the head of EPA has apparently been covering up for the administration. Ostensibly, the WH has not been in contact with Spitzer re: recovering internal emails. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 8, 2008 13:47:01 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 8, 2008 14:29:59 GMT -5
Wellllll......if they can make it look a little more like a car and a little less like something out of 'Tron,' then you can sign me up for one of the first ones off of the assembly line. (Not that I have a problem with 'Tron,' mind you, it's just that if I am going to be driving a vehicle from that movie, then it should either be a battle tank or a light cycle, not some dinky car with no apparent weapons systems whatsoever.) Also a little nervous about the "injected foam" chassis. "Do you think somebody would actually put millions of dollars into making a car that will not pass safety regulations? Um, in a word...yes. Still. Promising though. Hell, even if it only equals or slightly exceeds (instead of doubling) the fuel efficiency of a Prius, what's wrong with that? |
|
