I will believe the Saudis don't see any upcoming problems with Ghawar when they cancel one of their projects due to low oil prices. If they continue to be full steam ahead with increasing their capacity then I think they are aware that Ghawar may not be as robust in 5 years time as they would like us to believe.
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
MOST people will probably never admit that they themselves were to be credited for forming the coming population bottleneck. _________________ "Life is merely an orderly decay of energy states, and survival requires the continual discovery of new energy to pump into the system. He who controls the sources of energy controls the means of survival. "
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
I think that criticism of the government's energy policy, such as CAFE, is valid. If they freeze a fuel economy initiative with loopholes so large that manufacturers can build an auto fleet that averages ~30-40% worse mileage, I'd say that's a policy deserving of criticism. People for the most part can only drive what the auto companies make, and if the auto companies build nothing but inefficient vehicles, then the consumer will be stuck w/ those vehicles. Very profitable for those who sell oil thanks to huge loopholes in the energy policy, but not so good for the American consumer getting bent over at the pump. _________________
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:53 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
Drifter wrote:
yesplease wrote:
People for the most part can only drive what the auto companies make, and if the auto companies build nothing but inefficient vehicles, then the consumer will be stuck w/ those vehicles.
You're joking, right? The reason why American car manufacturers were building so many large vehicles is because that's what many Americans wanted.
Also, most people can decide to become car-free if they really want to. Or at least move closer to work or change to a job that is closer to home. Most people say 'I can't'. But in reality this means 'I could if I really tried, but I don't want to make the personal sacrifices'.
They can if they are given time. I have been trying for almost 5 years to get a comperible job closer to home. Now I am close, but still trying to close the deal. _________________ “It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.”
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:42 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
Drifter wrote:
yesplease wrote:
People for the most part can only drive what the auto companies make, and if the auto companies build nothing but inefficient vehicles, then the consumer will be stuck w/ those vehicles.
You're joking, right? The reason why American car manufacturers were building so many large vehicles is because that's what many Americans wanted.
I suppose that's why their sales have been so great lately and their stock has done so well? Any reasonable manufacturer would've pulled out of selling large vehicles as oil prices increased, but it took a five+ fold price increase in oil before they even touched their truck line. Also, GM didn't want their investors to vote for an increase in vehicle efficiency or allow the smaller share holders to have more say in the company.
Quote:
General Motors has urged investors to reject all 10 of the shareholder proposals for its June 5 annual meeting and to re-elect its board.
The proposals include requiring disclosure of political donations, cutting emissions of greenhouse gases and making it easier for smaller shareholders to elect directors, GM said Friday in a regulatory filing.
Ideally, yes, manufacturers would build what consumers want. But in the real world, financial firms like State Street Corp, own a majority of GM's stock, among other auto manufacturers. As such they have a pretty big say in terms of who is on the board, and those people decide what direction the company is headed in. Coincidentally, from the middle of 2006 to late 2007, State Street Corp's "oily" assets increased a measly $12 billion. From 2002, they've only seen a tiny $23 billion increase. Course, now that oil's ~$40/bbl past the December 2007 price, they may have a few more billions. The downside is they've lost almost two billion since 2002 via GM's slide. When loosing a couple billion and only raking in tens of billions extra, I wonder how they can get by.
Drifter wrote:
Also, most people can decide to become car-free if they really want to. Or at least move closer to work or change to a job that is closer to home. Most people say 'I can't'. But in reality this means 'I could if I really tried, but I don't want to make the personal sacrifices'.
Sure they can, but that can't do it overnight, which is how the money is made. Oil's short term inelasticity is pretty harsh. Long term, like over years/decades it ain't so bad, but for the next few years guess who is gonna be raking in money hand over fist.
All in all, they wouldn't be pulling these moves if it wasn't for the CAFE loopholes. Ignoring the fact that it was frozen, even if we stayed at ~25mpg, we would still be using ~30-40% less oil today and there would be ~2-3 years worth of world consumption still left in the ground. If the consumer wanted grossly inefficient vehicles that much, why did GM and others need to go through looholes regarding GVWR and whatnot? They could've simply overturned CAFE via the democratic process. All in all it just seems like another way to make money... At leat this time tey know to use third parties. I hope at the very least the streetcar scandal taught 'em that lesson. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4667 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:55 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
If DC had gotten out of our way, we would be on a much more sustainable path right now.
Who is artificially surpressing the price of gasoline? Who is creating incentives to use fossil fuels while ignoring the externalities? Who was building the mega highways while cutting funding for mass transit? Who stopped the construction of new nuclear power plants and new refineries and offshore drilling and wind/solar projects? Who created the ethanol mess? Who created "excess" profits taxes? Who is making Brazilian sugar ethanol impossible to sell in the United States? Who invaded Iraq and destroyed that country's oil production capacity? Who boycotts Iran and hinders that country's oil industry?
I could go on for hours...
The politicos in DC have more influence over our energy market than you think. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
Drifter wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
They can if they are given time. I have been trying for almost 5 years to get a comperible job closer to home. Now I am close, but still trying to close the deal.
I understand what you are saying. Things take time.
That's what I mean by personal sacrifices. Maybe doing with less to make the change. Even if that means taking a less paying job to move closer to work.
Not everyone can afford a condo downtown.
A lot of people HAVE to commute. They HAVE to drive their car.
Many of my relatives have tried moving to the center of Indy(they mostly work in that area.) but the neighborhoods are almost entirely for the rich. If you want to live close to work there, you either have to have the greens or live in a ghetto.
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
Tyler_JC wrote:
If DC had gotten out of our way, we would be on a much more sustainable path right now.
Who is artificially surpressing the price of gasoline? Who is creating incentives to use fossil fuels while ignoring the externalities? Who was building the mega highways while cutting funding for mass transit? Who stopped the construction of new nuclear power plants and new refineries and offshore drilling and wind/solar projects? Who created the ethanol mess? Who created "excess" profits taxes? Who is making Brazilian sugar ethanol impossible to sell in the United States? Who invaded Iraq and destroyed that country's oil production capacity? Who boycotts Iran and hinders that country's oil industry?
I could go on for hours...
The politicos in DC have more influence over our energy market than you think.
And who asked them for all that?
We let them take us right where we wanted to be. Your argument sounds like the fat cheeseburger eating guy that sues McDonalds for his hardened arteries.
Joined: Oct 11, 2005 Posts: 415 Location: Arizona, USA
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
I don't buy the "we've been force-fed SUVs" argument. Regardless of all the political and corporate action, the ultimate decisions in this case always rest in the hands of the consumer. The moment of truth comes down to the buyer walking on to the car lot and picking out a vehicle for himself, by himself. There's no one there with a gun at his back. People have willingly chosen to walk past the more fuel efficient models--which have always been available--and buy the guzzlers. Right now, consumer pressure is driving the auto makers into more fuel efficient models almost overnight, despite Detroit whining it would take hundreds of years and put 2/3 of the world out of work to make a car that gets better than 19 mpg. This same type of pressure would have been as unstoppable 10, 20, or 30 years ago as it now is. The only real issue here is that it didn't exist in the right magnitude or duration to force change. Now it does.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4667 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
The American People aren't given fair choices in most elections.
We either get anti-nuclear power Democrats or anti-renewable energy Republicans.
Which one are we supposed to vote for if we want both?
Politicians have the ability to affect public opinion. If they all agree that something is good, they can give speeches and convince people that they are right.
Congress and the President could have created a Patriot Gas Tax in the wake of 9/11 but they chose not to.
The connection between oil revenues and terrorism is not a giant leap that would be beyond our understanding. But our politicians choose to ignore this for the sake of their own agendas.
Did the American voters demand corn ethanol? Or was it the corn ethanol lobby?
Did voters choose to ban offshore drilling? Or was it the actions of a tiny minority of radical environmentalists?
Did the American People believe that we should create a new tax subsidy for Hummers or did GM have something to do with that?
American democracy isn't perfect and the influence of loud minority groups often leads to crappy public policy that the majority would never approve of. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Posts: 67 Location: Quebec/Ottawa, Canada
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
>According to a Consumer Reports Auto Pulse Survey released Thursday, 77% of consumers said the root of high gas prices lies with the government's failure to implement an effective energy policy. That compares with 75% of drivers who blamed oil companies, 70% who said foreign oil producers were at fault and 68% who thought the Middle East conflict was a leading cause for record fuel costs.
Typical.
blame the gov't (gov't of the people, by the people...).
blame the "greedy" oil companies and foreigners.
blame the middle east conflict.
blame anybody but themselves/ourselves.
Waahhh, it's THEIR fault, I did nothing but THEY are scr*wing poor innocent me ! I have the right to cheap gas... Wahhh ! Fix it mister gov't !! I'm just a poor baby who needs my gas bottle....
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: 77% of US drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices
Drifter wrote:
socrates1fan wrote:
Drifter wrote:
wisconsin_cur wrote:
They can if they are given time. I have been trying for almost 5 years to get a comperible job closer to home. Now I am close, but still trying to close the deal.
I understand what you are saying. Things take time.
That's what I mean by personal sacrifices. Maybe doing with less to make the change. Even if that means taking a less paying job to move closer to work.
Not everyone can afford a condo downtown.
A lot of people HAVE to commute. They HAVE to drive their car.
Many of my relatives have tried moving to the center of Indy(they mostly work in that area.) but the neighborhoods are almost entirely for the rich. If you want to live close to work there, you either have to have the greens or live in a ghetto.
Why do people have to own a house in the suburbs? Why can't they rent a small apartment closer to work and ride a bus, walk, or ride a bike? (yes, even with a family it's doable) Why do people have to drive a car to work? Why not buy a scooter and ride to work instead? There are other options for the willing. I'm tired of hearing the word 'can't'. Usually this equals 'won't' in most cases.
To maintain the same exact level of living, it may be impossible. But that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about personal sacrifice and doing without to live better in the long run. Not many Americans are willing to do that, are they? And yes, they could if they really tried. Americans have had cheap, convenient, mammoth-sized everything since at least the 1970's. The entitlement mentality still abounds. They have no idea how good they have had it. But that's finally changing. Previous generations of Americans are probably rolling in their graves at how spoiled and pussified people have become today.
*edit* This rant wasn't aimed at anyone here. Just venting.
The problem is(or at least here in the Indianapolis area) is that most people work downtown but as far as residential goes, the many historic districts are very expensive. There isn't a buffer of middle class neighborhoods, it just drops off from upper class, and then ghettos. Rent is also very high and whenever they build or renovate a building for low income or even normal income apartments they are taken up like that!
A normal person would have to live in the slums if they want to live close to work here. The rich populations downtown also prevent much lower-income development as they often try to pack as many wealthy people into the neighborhoods as possible to get rid of 'them poor folks'.
its a sick process and abuse of historic districts(its gone from preserving architecture to keeping people out.) have lead us to this situation.. at least in Indy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
