Craig58 said: "Also, you cannot use market forces to control OPEC prices, they will simply adjust production to maintain their target price, which they have stated to be a minimum of $90US. They can live with reduced production much longer than the U.S. can live with reduced consumption, and they know it. "
That is how I feel, but furthermore, should we ever develop an alternative fuel that’s cheaper than their oil, they can flood the market with oil until the oil prices collapse and make the new alternative energy source uncompetitive with their oil, unless we can come up with such a radical breakthrough that their oil is not worth shipping across the ocean if it was free. Ultimately, it will be the cost of alternative energy that sets the price of oil.
Note: the above post is best read while playing the National Anthem in the background.
“If you can’t see the link between our lack of oil conservation and our failed national policies, then by all means continue not being part of the solution”
I we really want to be part of the solution we should drive (very fast) to our local and national governmental elected folks and “get political” on their asses. The government is SUPPOSED to be of, by, and for the people - but we all seem to sit back and let our elected officials screw it up while we bicker over how fast we should drive.
Personally, I think “our failed national policies” run much deeper than energy related issues, the entire system is broken. Fixing energy issues will not even begin to fix U.S. foreign policy which has been a disaster for at least 50 years (can you name anything the U.S, has done right since the end of WW2?). I wish it was that easy.
Just to be clear, I’m not complaining about “high” fuel prices, I think all energy in the U.S. (including gasoline/diesel) is much too cheap, which has a lot to do with the current state of the energy infrastructure. If you want “energy independence,” you are going to pay for it; not mandate it.
Fortunately, the current speed limits are widely ignored and not enforced in most places. They are also generally set high enough to be somewhat reasonable, at least in the west. Forcing drivers the exceed the posted limits by 30 mph will just be inconvenient for everyone. The police will have to pretend to enforce the limits, and the drivers will have to pretend to care (and pay the occasional ticket), just like last time we had a pretend 55 mph limit. Do you remember the western states giving out those silly $5-10 dollar speeding tickets to protect their federal highway funds? It would have been funny if it wasn’t so idiotic. At least the folks who sold radar detectors made some money off that fiasco.
Regarding trucking, higher fuel prices may be just what is needed to get the vast majority long distance freight off the roads and to fix the U.S. rail system. That should have happened decades ago, but a combination of cheap fuel, trucking lobbyists, corruption, and a screwed up rail system has prevented it. Maybe we will end up with a reasonable rail freight system by the time diesel fuel gets to $6-8/gallon in a few years. Having 50% less trucks on the roads would go a long we towards reducing fuel consumption, but it will only happen if their operating costs increase dramatically enough to get them off the road permanently.
I would love to see the U.S. develop an alternate energy source that is cheaper than oil. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. All the current “alternatives” are significantly more expensive than oil, especially all the alternatives that are appropriate for transportation. The increase in oil prices (and the weak dollar) should actually help some of these alternate sources find a larger market (bio-fuels, wind, etc.). All politics aside, this is being driven by nothing except cost; the consumers are simply looking for the cheapest source of energy.
Unfortunately, the cheapest stationary energy supply in the U.S. is still coal (about 50% of electrical generation) and the cheapest transportation source is still oil (almost all transportation). In addition, much of the residential heating in the northeast U.S. is from oil, which is a very silly way to use a valuable resource. If you want that to change, you either have to find a cheaper alternative or make the current energy sources expensive enough that the alternative make economic sense. If you give some guy in boston cheap enough electricity (or high enough heating oil prices), and convince him that the price difference is permanent, he will spend several $1000 to convert his heating system from oil to electric; otherwise he has no incentive to do anything.
A lot of nails are being hit directly on the head here. It’s about incentives - and cost is a good one. We do what we like and what we want until otherwise not able to. This is a good thing in my view…
So what’s the problem? Why do folks like mconn want to implement change? What is gained by a little bit of fuel conservation?
I do agree with mconn that being dependent on imported oil is not good (primarily from an economic/trade balance point of view) and that is is not sustainable for the long term. However, I disagree on the method of reducing this dependence. I feel that increased cost is the only effective way to reduce consumption, while he wants to use mandates (i.e., speed limits) to indirectly reduce consumption. I believe that “a little bit of fuel conservation” would only serve to slightly lower fuel prices in the short term, which is opposite from what needs to happen (we need a sustained increase in prices to reduce consumption.
In other words, I don’t believe we can have it both ways; cheap fuel prices and reduced consumption. That’s just not how capitalism works.
I am not saying that people should be forced to give up SUVs, rather, the manufacturers should be required to adhere to reasonable improvements in MPG. Also, taxes should be higher on vehicles with higher emissions and lower MPG. Natural gas is a viable alternative already available at service stations in California. With proper incentives, this could be a major reduction in oil consumption. It is also very clean burning and about 1/3 the cost of operating same size vehicle on gas. Check out the Honda Civic, compare their Natural Gas with gas models. You will be surprised at the economy. Oil companies will resist the conversion because it will cut into their profits. We need government to help push this type alternatives.
“Regarding trucking, higher fuel prices may be just what is needed to get the vast majority long distance freight off the roads and to fix the U.S. rail system. That should have happened decades ago, but a combination of cheap fuel, trucking lobbyists, corruption, and a screwed up rail system has prevented it”
That’s a bridge we can’t recross. Studies have been done to the point of boredom, that our social structure developement has advanced so far beyond the reintroduction of the rail system for trans. of goods is not possible. Eminent domain and the upgrading of rail beds would infringe on individual property rights to the degree that NO ONE is willing to accept. With the intro of “container” system we have vastly outgrown our capacity to serve entire towns and cities that have grown up in areas unservicable by anything but long haul trucking. The closest we could get IMO, is truck restricted lane traffic. Good luck…already big hoopla about the trans. Mexico/US/Canada highway that WILL make us all one citizenry. Big rigs are here to stay…rail is out and will never return as anything but public transportation in a very limited way.
Craig writes, “that is is not sustainable for the long term.”
Another nail hit squarely on the head! This is all about sustainability of of our lifestyle. Looking ahead, what do we have to do now to prevent our eventual demise - and more difficult - how do we as the few - get we as the many to make small changes today to avoid a disaster in the future.
Again I agree with Craig - you can’t use mandates to force change - we should use what our society and country is built upon - free market forces.
So if free market forces should do the trick for us… then why are they aparantly not working?
I think it’s because we haven’t allowed our free market forces to act freely and we have shifted the real costs of things to places where the resulting market forces are pushing in the wrong places. Example - the government builds and maintains our highway transportation infrastructure - but it doesn’t pay for that by charging the right people the right price. The result is we have artificially cheap transportation and we are angry about how much income tax is taken.
We will see what happens when fuel costs get high enough. I’m not saying that all long haul trucking will go away (although, that would be nice), but I would hope we see maximum utilization of the existing rail system and upgrades where it is practical. Drive across KS or NE and try to tell me that they couldn’t upgrade and/or increase the number of tracks, and take a look at the number of unnecessary trucks on I-70 and I-80 (which run right along the tracks for 100s of miles). Never underestimate what can happen when driven by economics.
I drove the grandkids to Tulsa this summer down route 66 to see the Bonneville being unburied. I used $300 worth of gas to get there. (Conversion van that we camped in.) On the way back we drove the interstates but I tried to keep it between 65 and 70. Used $500 gas on the way back. I believe that is significant. If you are interested in “green” things, at least. I try to drive 55-60 in the right lane on the highway but I sure do deal with a lot of hostility. Those of you that say it’s okay for us to do that need to lighten up on us “55-ers”. I’m not tied to my cruise control. When I need to pass a truck or a slower car I’ll take it up to 70 or 75. I try to stay out of the way but still get the glares and fingers and fists. It’s all rather disconcerting. What say you?
I have no problem with people voluntarily driving more slowly, as long as they are aware of other traffic on the road. If fuel gets expensive (and I have time), I might be one of those folks too, Im just not going to be required to drive slowly by some “one size fits all” rule.
As long as you?re putting along is the right lane, and are not creating a traffic hazard (your speed vs. the prevailing average speed). Then I have no problem with it, just keep in mind there are many more people who value time saved by driving faster over saving a few gallons of gas, so you’re going to get nasty looks regardless.
I have to wonder about the drivers though, that bring their distress upon themselves by not planning ahead and getting stuck behind me in the right lane. They are the ones that I worry about. They get so mad at me for their own stupidity at not being a better driver and actually watching what’s going on on the road ahead of them. Get over into the passing lane people! lol Don’t try to sneak in farther up the line of cars! You’ll just get stuck! They’re the ones that kill me (not literally…yet…lol). I try to take the state highways because of this. I don’t want to bother people…I just want to do my little part (saving gas) in my little part of the world that I have influence over. But-through the mountains------got to be the interstates if you don’t want to take hours longer to get somewhere.
Don’t worry about it if you are in the correct lane, they can go around you. In the mountains there are always plenty of trucks driving slowly anyway, there’s nothing they can do about it.
I wish clueless people would do some research before posting ! U S Foreign policy since WWII - start with the Marshall Plan and the Independence of the Phillipines And we’re not to 1950 yet !
I wasn’t referring to U.S. actions associated with the end of WW2, I was referring to all the idiotic decisions associated with the “cold war” (including korea, vietnam, the “arms race,” SDI, and more than a few misadventures in south and central america, most notably cuba) right up the the U.S. governments failure to notice that the USSR had fallen apart on their own anyway. No sooner had they finished patting themselves on the back for “winning the cold war” (whatever that means), they entered into the “war on terror” (another pointless exercise, guaranteed to distract the next several administrations from doing anything useful). About the only dumber thing I can remember is the “was of drugs.” This is a little like watching the downfall of the british empire 100 years ago, they are always ready to fight the last war but don’t have a clue what’s coming next.