(09-13-2012 02:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1) INCREASE the tax on gasoline. That way, price elasticity moves forward to a lower consumption point, but in a manner that doesn't help the exporters financially (as the US government would get the increased price from the tax rather than the exporters as higher prices). Yes, we will pay more, but we will help offset the deficit, provide some funds for alt energy investments, and perhaps reduce the need to spend money abroad on USAID and some of our military spending on nations to provide influence with energy exporters.

Translation: Profiting off of oil is only evil when private companies do it and just fine for the government. Not only is it ok for the government to profit off of oil but to use taxes as a behavioral control tool and not only a funding mechanism.

(09-13-2012 02:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1) INCREASE the tax on gasoline. That way, price elasticity moves forward to a lower consumption point, but in a manner that doesn't help the exporters financially (as the US government would get the increased price from the tax rather than the exporters as higher prices). Yes, we will pay more, but we will help offset the deficit, provide some funds for alt energy investments,

Really? And what magic formula do you suggest? DoE already has a $25B dollar budget (and has been operating for decades), they set up ARPA-E, and that doesn't even count NSF or DoD funding, or the Petroleum Research Fund. So we just need to spend a few million more? Is that it?

Quote: and perhaps reduce the need to spend money abroad on USAID and some of our military spending on nations to provide influence with energy exporters.

Yeah, becuase in the entire history of the world that has worked...never.

Quote:2) Enact higher CAFE standards. No that isn't immediate, but it would provide incentives for car manufacturers to invest in fuel saving technology. We'll pay higher car prices in the short run, but it could help our car industry be competitive going forward.

More complete fiction. US industry isn't ready for higher standards, but the foreign owned manufacturers are. And since there is no magic formula here either, that means smaller cars, fewer trucks. I'm sure that will do wonders for the economy.

Quote:3) Increase access to SAFE drilling, such as off the coasts of Florida and Virginia.

ok

Quote:4) Invest in alternative energy

Isn't that your job? Oh wait, you don't want to take the risk, you just want to make money. Typical "progressive".

Quote:(perhaps using the proceeds from the addl gas tax in item 1). And yes, there will be Solyendra's but some of the investments will move the ball forward

See the truth in #1. That's what happens when you meet people who actually know something about reality, and don't try to fudge numbers.

Quote:5) Continue to use the regulatory framework to incentivise renewable energy percentages in electric generation. We are already doing that, but its under heavy attack from the energy lobby.

Because it's an abject failure. See Germany. Oh, and how's that gonna affect oil?

Quote:6) Use our energy assets appropriately. The US is one of the few nations that has excess refining capacity. We import crude, refine it, and then send those products (gasoline, heating oil, etc.) to other countries. The problem we have now is that any new oil that comes into the system immediately gets exported out as gasoline. I don't know what mechanism we have to limit that (export taxes are illegal per US law) but perhaps we could do something in that area.

Why? Why not ease regulation to allow for more refining capacity, and make money from it?

Quote:Drill Baby Drill in a vacuum wont do much.

Pfft, that's funny coming from you.

(09-13-2012 02:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 02:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1) INCREASE the tax on gasoline. That way, price elasticity moves forward to a lower consumption point, but in a manner that doesn't help the exporters financially (as the US government would get the increased price from the tax rather than the exporters as higher prices). Yes, we will pay more, but we will help offset the deficit, provide some funds for alt energy investments, and perhaps reduce the need to spend money abroad on USAID and some of our military spending on nations to provide influence with energy exporters.

Translation: Profiting off of oil is only evil when private companies do it and just fine for the government. Not only is it ok for the government to profit off of oil but to use taxes as a behavioral control tool and not only a funding mechanism.

Well short of rationing and/or taxation, I don't see any way to cut our demand for foreign sourced oil that doesn't end up lining the pockets of our rivals. There isn't enough supply to do the trick.

If you're serious about reducing our subsidy of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, you'll have to come up with a better solution than just increase drilling so that we can get 2 percent more oil. I'm fine with more SAFE drilling, but don't pretend you're doing anything to stop our funding of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

You are free to come up with some solutions to our dependency on foreign oil. There isn't as much untapped oil as you think out there in the USA. Sure, there has been some additional nat gas reserves in the past years, and nat gas (poorly but cleanly btw) can be used to power vehicles, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon and will require government intervention to accomplish (as people will choose faster gasoline cars over slower nat gas ones all else being equal).

I proposed a solution. Would it be cheap? No. Would it be non-governmental? No. But would it work? You bet. Either come up with your own solution or stop pretending you are looking for real answers.

What Tom has proposed is a pretty reasonable approach. If we could get more discussion along these lines from both sides, then we might get somewhere.

After my lunch conversation with the tax lobbyist a couple of weeks ago, I have this perception that maybe 90% of congress, on both sides of the aisle, know what needs to be done but the political leadership keeps it from happening.

(09-13-2012 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What Tom has proposed is a pretty reasonable approach. If we could get more discussion along these lines from both sides, then we might get somewhere.

Ok, someone please explain to me how more gov't money to alternative fuels is suddenly going to make it happen.

Dept of Energy budget is no secret.

Maybe you bring back thermal depolymerization and Changing World Technologies, but Tom has boasted he makes several million/year, so why doesn't he do it, instead of insisting that taxpayers foot the bill?

Seriously, they reported production costs of $80-90/barrel of very high grade crude. That beats the current mark, so you're at a profit.

Or why did International Titanium Powder keep begging for money to expand? When they insisted they were profitable, their future production runs already sold out, and their process completely scaleable. (Ti auto parts means replacing lighter than steel while maintaining strength). Anyway, where were the big investors for them? (They're foreign owned now, BTW)

My point being, if there are already viable technologies, then why aren't they getting funded? Why should taxpayers take Solyndra type risks? (Answer is that Tom knows how to make money from these scams, while the general public is the loser). And if there aren't viable technologies ready and waiting, then why believe that "just a little more" money will find them?

The CAFE standards can be mandated all you want, but that doesn't change engineering principles of the physics they're founded on. You're insisting on lighter cars, smaller engines and fewer trucks. That will slow the economy. It will also provide more opportunity for crony capitalists to rip off taxpayers. (Fisker anybody?)

(09-13-2012 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I proposed a solution. Would it be cheap? No. Would it be non-governmental? No. But would it work? You bet.

I'll take that bet.

(09-13-2012 08:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What Tom has proposed is a pretty reasonable approach. If we could get more discussion along these lines from both sides, then we might get somewhere.

Ok, someone please explain to me how more gov't money to alternative fuels is suddenly going to make it happen.

It's not.

I didn't say I agreed totally. I said it was a reasonable approach and if we could get similarly reasonable discussion from both sides, we might get somewhere.

I think if there were reasonable discussion by both sides, one thing that would become quickly and readily apparent is how little impact alternatives are going to have for a long, long time.

One approach I proposed earlier was to get everybody together and say, "We have a 20 million barrel a day problem." So, "OK, conservation guys, how much can we reduce consumption, best case, and what does it take to make that happen?" Do it.

Then, "OK, alternatives guys, how much can we get from alternatives, best case, and what does it take to make that happen?" Do it. Then turn to the oil guys, "Can you drill enough to produce the rest?" Do it.

What would simply astonish most of the sheeple is how little the first two groups would actually be able to produce on that basis.

(09-13-2012 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 08:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What Tom has proposed is a pretty reasonable approach. If we could get more discussion along these lines from both sides, then we might get somewhere.

Ok, someone please explain to me how more gov't money to alternative fuels is suddenly going to make it happen.

It's not.

I didn't say I agreed totally. I said it was a reasonable approach and if we could get similarly reasonable discussion from both sides, we might get somewhere.

I think if there were reasonable discussion by both sides, one thing that would become quickly and readily apparent is how little impact alternatives are going to have for a long, long time.

One approach I proposed earlier was to get everybody together and say, "We have a 20 million barrel a day problem." So, "OK, conservation guys, how much can we reduce consumption, best case, and what does it take to make that happen?" Do it.

Then, "OK, alternatives guys, how much can we get from alternatives, best case, and what does it take to make that happen?" Do it. Then turn to the oil guys, "Can you drill enough to produce the rest?" Do it.

What would simply astonish most of the sheeple is how little the first two groups would actually be able to produce on that basis.

I agree w/ you. Most of my conservation ideas are 1-2%...not anywhere near the 50% we need.

We need to get rid of expensive commuter trains, and improve bus lines. Funding for buses always gets hammered when it comes to protecting trains (which are far sexier). This one may actually be more than a 1-2% improvement right there.

One point is to make it safe for new ideas. We need proper zoning ordinances and laws re: bicycle theft. Silly I know, but there was a reason you hung a horse thief, bicycle theft is a misdemeanor.

I think you're off re: the impact of alternate fuels, if we allow innovationton prosper. Short-range electric cars for commuting might be a winner...if electric costs went down.
We need to stop shutting down coal-powered electric plants, and expecting natural gas to fill the void, b/c natural gas is viable for autos, but not if its price is driven up by demand from electric power production.

(09-13-2012 11:12 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 11:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Do they hate us because we are free?(loosely termed)...or because we are there?

THat answer is simple(much like Torchy and SOAF). All one has to do is ask yourself the questions: "How would you react if the Chinese military set up shop in the US?" "How would you feel if China interfered in our politics?" THe answer is NOT HAPPY. Why the hell anyone would believe that their citizens would be happy having us do that to their countries is delusional.

So I assume you will be writing in Ron Paul in the upcoming election? Maybe checking the box for Gary Johnson? I would assume based on your statement above that you will not be voting for Barack "I love killing people with drones in the Middle East" Obama!

(09-17-2012 09:24 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 11:12 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 11:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Do they hate us because we are free?(loosely termed)...or because we are there?

THat answer is simple(much like Torchy and SOAF). All one has to do is ask yourself the questions: "How would you react if the Chinese military set up shop in the US?" "How would you feel if China interfered in our politics?" THe answer is NOT HAPPY. Why the hell anyone would believe that their citizens would be happy having us do that to their countries is delusional.

So I assume you will be writing in Ron Paul in the upcoming election? Maybe checking the box for Gary Johnson? I would assume based on your statement above that you will not be voting for Barack "I love killing people with drones in the Middle East" Obama!

It's different when Obama does it.

(09-17-2012 09:40 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(09-17-2012 09:24 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 11:12 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 11:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Do they hate us because we are free?(loosely termed)...or because we are there?

THat answer is simple(much like Torchy and SOAF). All one has to do is ask yourself the questions: "How would you react if the Chinese military set up shop in the US?" "How would you feel if China interfered in our politics?" THe answer is NOT HAPPY. Why the hell anyone would believe that their citizens would be happy having us do that to their countries is delusional.

So I assume you will be writing in Ron Paul in the upcoming election? Maybe checking the box for Gary Johnson? I would assume based on your statement above that you will not be voting for Barack "I love killing people with drones in the Middle East" Obama!

It's different when Obama does it.

Well of course, because he pronounces Pakistan like Pockistahn, making him sound worldly and cultured.